mod_remove

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already warns that this operation is destructive, and the description's action 'remove' aligns with that. The description adds value by specifying the accepted identifier types (name, class, stack index), which is crucial for correct invocation. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like whether the removal is permanent or if any confirmation is required, but given the annotation, the agent knows it's destructive. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence in both Chinese and English. It front-loads the essential information (removal action, modifier identification) and includes no filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with a destructive annotation and full schema coverage, the description provides all necessary information: the action, the target, and the identifier formats. It also mentions the optional 'objects' parameter indirectly via the schema. There's no output schema, so no return value explanation is needed. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the permanence of the removal, but the destructive hint covers that. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, explaining both parameters: 'modifier' (name/class/index) and 'objects' (list or current selection). The description reiterates the modifier parameter's semantics, which is redundant but not harmful. Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, the description adds minimal extra meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: removing a modifier from an object. It explicitly identifies the resource (modifier) and the action (remove), and it lists the acceptable identifier forms (name, class, or index), which is essential for correct usage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mod_disable (which disables rather than removes) and mod_add (which adds), so an agent can easily differentiate them.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when the goal is to permanently delete a modifier, as opposed to temporarily disabling it (sibling mod_disable). It doesn't explicitly state 'use mod_disable to temporarily disable' but the contrast is clear given the sibling context. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, but the description's clarity about removal versus disabling is a strong implicit guide.

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