ae_remove_expression

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation (expression removal) but does not mention what happens if no expression exists, whether the property value is affected, whether the action is reversible, or any error/permission implications.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states exactly what the tool does and wastes no words.

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 simple three-parameter removal operation with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It is slightly incomplete because it omits edge-case behavior (no existing expression) and has no output schema, but these are minor for this 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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document comp_name, layer_name, and property_path. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond identifying the target as a layer property, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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'), a specific object ('an expression'), and the scope ('from a layer property'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_add_expression and ae_set_layer_property, so an agent can tell what it does.

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 verb and object imply the use case: call when an expression on a property needs to be removed. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer related tools such as ae_add_expression or ae_set_layer_property.

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