remove_mask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the mask is removed, implying a destructive action, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether a mask must exist), side effects, reversibility, or what happens if no mask is present. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The action and object are front-loaded, and it is appropriately sized for the simplicity of 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It doesn't mention what happens if no mask exists, whether the view must have a mask, or any error conditions. These gaps are notable because the description is the sole source of behavioral context, but they are not severe enough to make the tool unusable.

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 only parameter target_id is already described as 'Target view ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate – 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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('current mask from a view'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool close_mask, which might also be interpreted as removing a mask from a view, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 such as close_mask or apply_mask. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any explicit conditions or exclusions.

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