remove_anim_graph_parameter

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 usefully discloses that group parameters are rejected and what the return payload looks like, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or side effects on the graph, leaving meaningful gaps 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint, then the return shape and args. It is tight and well-ordered, with only minor redundancy in restating the return value that the output schema already covers.

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 the return explanation is not strictly needed. However, for a two-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits permission requirements, error modes beyond group refusal, and effects on references to the removed parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters, and the anim_graph_id note ('number or digit string') clarifies the anyOf type beyond the raw schema, but 'name: The parameter's name' adds little and no format or validation detail is given.

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 a precise resource (a value parameter from an anim graph), which also distinguishes it from remove_anim_graph_node and remove_anim_graph. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the noun phrase 'value parameter' and the 'Groups are refused' scope note make the target 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing text. The 'Groups are refused' clause gives partial guidance on when the tool will not work (group parameters), implying usage for value parameters only, but the agent must infer the rest.

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