inset_rm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the clip stays registered, and positions above the removed one shift down by one. This tells the agent about side effects on other insets, which is valuable and not duplicated by annotations or schema.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives the essential behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward removal tool, the description covers what it removes, how the target is identified, and the two important side effects. The output schema exists, annotations carry the destructive warning, and generic parameters (path, plan) are fully documented in the schema. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'position' parameter by clarifying that positions are stable until a removal and that subsequent positions shift down by one. This goes beyond the schema's simple phrase 'by its position in inset_ls' and helps an agent reason about valid inputs and consequences.

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 states a specific action ('Take one inset off'), a specific resource ('the recording'), and the selection mechanism ('by its position in inset_ls'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like inset_add, inset_ls, and the other *_rm tools, so an agent can identify it correctly without opening the schema.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: it removes an inset identified by its position in inset_ls, implying one should list insets first. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not conditions, but for a remove-by-index operation the context is sufficient; it does not mislead.

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