remove_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. 'Remove' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but it says nothing about whether removal shifts subsequent effect indices, requires the effect to exist, or needs project context.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what 'index' means, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to remaining effects after removal.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description implies 'layer' but never defines what 'index' refers to (presumably an effect-list position) and omits the 'project' parameter entirely, leaving required parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb (remove) and resource (effect) with the scope constraint (from a layer), so an agent knows what operation this performs. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings like remove_mask, remove_layer, or list_effects/add_effect, but the core purpose is 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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right tool versus update_effect or move_effect.

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