Remove obstacle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's only job is to add context such as irreversibility, effect on the simulation state, or behavior on an unknown id — none of which is present. 'Remove an obstacle' essentially restates the name and title.

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?

One short, front-loaded clause with no filler. Its efficiency is close to ideal, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than being optimally informative.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety signal and no output schema to explain, the definition is minimally adequate. It still leaves open what removal changes in the world and how invalid ids behave, which an agent calling a destructive operation would want to know.

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 0% and the parameter is a bare string, so the description must carry the burden. It usefully tells the agent the id is an obstacle identifier discoverable via list_world, but gives no format or validity details, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove an obstacle') and scopes it to 'by id', which is enough to distinguish it from add_obstacle and remove_color_tape. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tool, so it stops just short of 5.

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 parenthetical '(see list_world)' gives a concrete pointer for obtaining the id, which is real usage guidance. There is no statement of when not to use it, preconditions, or what a failed removal looks like, so the guidance remains implicit.

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