image_rm

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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint: true`, so the description does not need to restate destructiveness. It does add the conditional behavior of refusing while a cue/overlay uses the image and mentions that the using item is named instead, but this is also largely present in the `name` property description and is obscured by the garbled prose.

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 short, but brevity comes at the cost of clarity. 'Remove a still nothing places' is not a readable sentence, and 'A cue or overlay using it is named instead' is cryptic. The action is front-loaded, but the sentence-level problems prevent this from being effective concise writing.

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?

The schema and output schema cover path handling and the destructive hint covers the delete side effect, but the description leaves usage guidance and the dependency behavior ambiguous. It never clearly states that the image is removed only when no cue/overlay references it, nor what the agent should do when the removal is refused.

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%; both `name` and `path` are fully documented, including binding behavior and refusal semantics. The prose adds no value beyond the schema, 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 begins with 'Remove a still,' which identifies the verb and resource, but the phrase 'nothing places' is ungrammatical and only becomes decipherable after reading the `name` schema: 'The image to remove. Refused while a cue or overlay places it.' It loosely distinguishes from sibling deletion tools by operating on stills rather than cues/overlays, but does not state this clearly.

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 when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. The refusal condition is implied by 'A cue or overlay using it is named instead,' but the description never tells the agent what to do when the image is in use or points to related tools such as `cue_rm` or `overlay_rm`.

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