コンポーネント除去

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation (true), the description adds that removal is immediate, returns {entityId, removed}, and lists immutable components. This provides useful behavioral context not inferred from annotations.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose; the second adds key constraints and output format. Perfectly concise for a simple removal 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, constraints, immediate effect, and return value. No gaps remain for this tool's complexity.

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%, so parameters are already described. The description adds context: component is a jsonKey with examples (pointLight, rigidBody), and clarifies the usage of 'name' vs 'entity' (name is stable after stop). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 tool removes a component from an entity, specifies that 'component' is a jsonKey, and lists non-removable components like transform/name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as dx12_set_component which sets values.

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 usage for component removal and notes constraints on which components cannot be removed, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or provide alternatives. The guideline is adequate but minimal.

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