remove_state_machine_state

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 explicitly discloses two important side effects: Godot drops transitions touching the state, and undo does not restore them. This goes beyond a basic action description, though it could mention prerequisites or failure modes.

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 that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical adds critical side-effect information without bloat. Every word adds value.

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 has three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what node_path vs state_machine_path mean, return values, error conditions, or when the state machine path is needed. While the side effects are disclosed, the overall context is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has three parameters (node_path, state_name, state_machine_path) with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of these parameters. It only mentions 'state' and 'AnimationTree state machine' without clarifying which parameter refers to what, leaving the agent to guess from names.

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 a state') and the resource ('AnimationTree state machine'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'remove_state_machine_transition' which removes transitions. The parenthetical adds specific context about side effects, further clarifying the tool's scope.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to remove states from an AnimationTree state machine but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'remove_state_machine_transition' or 'add_state_machine_state'. The side-effect warning about transitions being dropped and undo not restoring them gives some usage context but no direct comparison or exclusion.

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