remove_collision_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that exactly one rod or box is removed and that the rest remain, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb 'Remove'. It doesn't mention invalid-index failure modes or irreversibility, but the scoped effect is clear.

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 concise sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a parenthetical for the parameter source. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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, side-effect-heavy tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential pieces: what, which parameter, and how to choose it. Minor gaps such as invalid-index behavior or return value are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must explain the single 'index' parameter. It does this by pointing to list_collision_objects as the source of the index, which adds real meaning. It leaves zero-based/one-based convention unspecified, but the tool is still invocable from that guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clear resource ('one rod or box'), and ties the target to a specific list via 'index from list_collision_objects'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_rod, add_box, delete_pattern, and remove_all_pins.

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?

It clearly tells the agent where to get the index ('from list_collision_objects') and clarifies scope ('the others stay'). It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for this simple one-item removal.

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