overlay_rm

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

Annotations already establish this as destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: removing the overlay leaves the card under assets/cards/, re-placement is possible, and positions above shift down by one. This helps the agent predict consequences without contradicting the destructive hint.

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 compact: two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral consequences stated in the second sentence. Every sentence adds information about what the tool does or what the agent should expect afterward.

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 removal tool with a rich schema, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential context: how to select the overlay, that the card persists, and that indices shift. It does not spell out invalid-position behavior or prerequisites, but those are not necessary given the schema and sibling overlay_ls.

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% and the schema already documents position as the overlay index in overlay_ls and the semantics of path and plan. The tool description mostly repeats position's meaning and adds no new parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the weight as expected.

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 overlay off the film') on a specific resource ('overlay') and identifies the selection mechanism ('by its position in overlay_ls'). This clearly distinguishes overlay_rm from overlay_add and overlay_ls and from other removal tools like inset_rm or cue_rm.

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 implies when to use the tool: remove an overlay by referencing its position in overlay_ls. It gives useful context such as the card remaining re-placeable and positions shifting, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some routing to inference.

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