remove_expression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other properties, or has side effects (e.g., breaking linked expressions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or what happens after removal (e.g., error handling or return values). For a mutation tool in this environment, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, with all three parameters (compId, layerIndex, propertyPath) documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of property paths or how indices work. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 target ('an expression from a layer property'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_expression_control' or 'set_expression' by focusing on removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'clear_render_queue' or 'delete_layer' that also remove things.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing expression), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'delete_layer' or 'modify_layer_properties' that might affect expressions. The description assumes context without stating it.

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