remove_material

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral effects on its own. It only states the action without detailing consequences: does the material data get deleted or just unassigned? What happens if the slot index is out of range? No side effects or error behavior are mentioned. The absence of any additional context makes this a weak disclosure.

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, focused sentence that contains no filler. Every word adds meaning: it states the action, the target, and the key parameter. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is almost complete. It explains the core operation sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps include not stating the return value (though an output schema exists) and not addressing edge cases like invalid slot indices, but these are not critical for basic 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters implicitly: 'object' is the target object and 'slot index' refers to the slot parameter. However, it provides no constraints (e.g., valid range, behavior when slot is omitted despite the default). This is adequate but not rich.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('material slot from an object'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_material (which likely deletes a material) and assign_material. It also specifies the method (by slot index), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to remove a material slot from an object. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it should be used over deleting the material itself. Lacks explicit 'use case A vs B' guidance.

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