remove_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the side effect that the floor and walls under the removed object are filled in, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the simple 'remove' action. It does not mention reversibility or other side effects, but the disclosed side effect is significant.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important side effect is stated immediately after.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and the key side effect. It could mention whether the operation is reversible or what the output contains, but the output schema likely covers return values, and the side effect disclosure is sufficient for a simple removal tool.

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 mentions the object is removed 'by id', which aligns with the single object_id parameter, but it does not add detail about the id format or how to obtain it. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property name.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('an object by id'), and the additional detail about floor/walls being filled in helps distinguish it from other object-manipulation siblings like move_object or replace_object. It is clear but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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: call it when you want to delete an object by its id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like replace_object or undo, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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