remove_notifies

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it is minimal. It states the removal action but does not clarify whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if no notifies match, how both notify_name and track_name interact (e.g., AND vs OR), or any permission or side-effect considerations. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 exceptionally concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clean, structured argument list. Every line adds value without repetition or extraneous detail, which is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the basic operation and parameters, but it lacks contextual depth. It does not explain edge cases, the relationship between the two optional filters, or the impact of the operation (e.g., irreversibility, no-op behavior). The output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, but the missing behavioral nuances reduce completeness.

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?

Since the schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates by explaining each parameter: asset_path is an Unreal asset path, notify_name removes notifies with that name, and track_name removes all notifies on that track. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type and title information, though it could be richer about formats and precedence.

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 begins with a clear imperative verb and resource: 'Remove notifies by name or track.' This immediately states the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_notify_track (removes a track) and get_anim_notifies (read-only). The parameter list reinforces the purpose by naming the two filtering criteria.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related operations like remove_notify_track or copy_notifies, nor does it state conditions for using notify_name vs track_name or warn about ambiguous cases. The usage is only implied from the name and short description.

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