remove_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive mutation but does not say whether removal is permanent or undoable, whether it requires an open job or specific permissions, or what happens to dependent state such as slices or bed assignments.

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, which is structurally fine. The brevity crosses into under-specification given this is a destructive operation with an undocumented parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description leaves out the safety, prerequisite, and identifier information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% and the single parameter "objects" is undocumented, so the description needed to explain what the strings represent (IDs, names, paths) and whether removal is all-or-nothing. It adds nothing beyond restating the parameter name.

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 verb and resource are stated plainly ("Remove objects") and the scope is limited to "the job," which separates it from copy_objects. However, "objects" is never defined and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like set_object_settings or move_to_bed that also act on object selections.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus copy_objects or set_object_settings, and no stated preconditions such as whether the job must be open or the objects loaded. The agent must infer the entire invocation context.

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