Remove Component

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

The annotations already provide key behavioral signals: destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds scope ('from the canvas') but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as irreversibility or behavior when the ID does not exist, though idempotentHint=true partially covers the latter. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear sentence, then a simple parameter list and a concrete example. There is no fluff, and every element contributes to understanding how to invoke the tool.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential action, target, and example. It could mention what happens if the component doesn't exist, but the idempotentHint annotation mitigates that need. Overall, sufficient for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' is described identically in the schema and the description. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it does provide a concrete example invocation, which is mildly helpful. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('component from the canvas by its ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like design_add_component, design_update_component, or design_remove_page. The action and target are immediately clear.

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 indicates when to use this tool: to remove a component by its ID from the canvas. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use design_remove_page for pages), but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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