style_remove_filter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool removes a filter, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, but unspecified), permission requirements, side effects, or what happens if no filter exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean ('객체에서 필터를 제거합니다') that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'filter' means in this context, the effect of removal, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely modifies visual styles, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'objectId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying an object context, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('제거합니다' - removes) and target ('객체에서 필터' - filter from object), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what type of object or filter is involved and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'style_filter' (which likely adds/modifies filters) or 'object_delete' (which removes entire objects).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing filter), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'style_filter' or 'object_delete'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.