Stage Waypoint Remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add real value: it discloses that a missing pin is not an error ({removed:false}) and that nothing is emitted, so the agent knows this is a safe no-throw mutation. It does not say whether the waypoint must exist in the currently loaded scene or what happens if the removed waypoint is the active navigation target.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by return semantics; nothing is repeated from the schema. Slightly telegraphic notation ('{removed}', 'page command:') assumes familiarity, but the size is appropriate.

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?

The mutation's outcome (removed flag, no error, no events) is fully covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out further. The gap is context: with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the agent still cannot tell whether the scene must be active or what identifier form 'wp' takes.

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 both 'scene' and 'wp' are bare strings. The description never explains what 'wp' is keyed by (name? index? id?) nor what 'scene' refers to (a scene identifier from stage_list?). At zero coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 and resource: 'Remove one pin', and maps it to the underlying page command 'waypoint_remove'. It implicitly distinguishes single-pin removal from the clear-all sibling (stage_waypoints_clear) by saying 'one pin', but never names the siblings (stage_waypoint_set, stage_waypoint_go) explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: removing a single existing pin rather than setting, going to, or clearing all of them. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over stage_waypoints_clear or what precondition is required (does the scene need to be loaded/active?).

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