remove_tile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Remove any tile at position' (implying a destructive mutation) and 'Auto-solves' (suggesting it triggers a solve check after removal), but fails to detail critical aspects like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what 'Auto-solves' entails (e.g., validation or simulation). This leaves significant gaps 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 extremely concise with two short phrases ('Remove any tile at position. Auto-solves.'), front-loaded with the core action and followed by a behavioral note. Every word contributes meaning without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It mentions removal and auto-solving but omits details on effects, return values, error handling, or interaction with other tools (e.g., 'undo'). For a tool in a level-editing context with many siblings, this lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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% description coverage, with parameters 'x' and 'y' documented as coordinates. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these specify the tile position, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Remove any tile') and the target ('at position'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_barrier' or 'remove_pressure_plate' by focusing on generic tiles, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tile-removal tools (e.g., 'remove_pushable_rock'), keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 usage when needing to remove a tile at specific coordinates, with 'Auto-solves' suggesting it triggers a solve check. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'remove_barrier' or 'clear_region', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, resulting in an implied but incomplete context.

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