remove_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: deleting a container component also deletes its children. It also states the scope ('from the current form'). This goes beyond a bare 'delete component' and provides meaningful behavioral insight, though it does not mention reversibility or permissions.

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 two short, dense sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the important container-behavior is appended concisely. It earns its place fully.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, this description is sufficient. It states what is deleted, the context (current form), and a critical side effect (cascade). It does not cover error cases or auth, but those are often implicit for such tools and not required here.

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% and the schema already describes the 'path' parameter with examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (delete specified component), the object (component in the current form), and a key distinguishing detail (supports container components, deleting children). This differentiates it from sibling add/copy/move/reorder tools unambiguously.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the description makes the operation's scope and effect clear, so an agent can infer when to use it. It provides one use-case nuance (container deletion cascades), but does not contrast with other removal tools like remove_validator or remove_formula.

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