remove_fx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose destructive effects. 'Remove' implies deletion, but it does not state whether removal is permanent, what happens to parameter automation, whether FX indices shift after removal, or any error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 a single clear sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and object, making it easy to parse, though it trades away behavioral detail.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, and the presence of sibling FX tools, this description is too sparse for full contextual understanding. It does not cover destructive semantics, index conventions, or use-case context, but the output schema may cover return values.

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 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain whether indices are zero-based, how track_index is resolved, or how fx_index maps to the FX chain. The parameter names are self-explanatory but add no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'FX' on a 'track', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_fx or toggle_fx. It is concise and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toggle_fx (which likely enables/disables rather than removes) or get_fx_list. The description only states the operation, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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