fx_remove_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: deletion order is handled automatically, overlapping entries are safe, and bad indices produce errors without aborting the rest. This goes beyond simply saying 'remove' and gives an agent confidence about side effects and error isolation, though it doesn't mention irreversibility or permissions.

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 tightly structured: the purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then the Args section gives examples in a clear, readable format, and one sentence covers ordering/error behavior. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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?

The input format is fully specified, including all entry variants and error behavior. The only gap is the exact success response shape beyond the mention of an errors array, but with no output schema or annotations, the essential usage is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0% and the schema only says 'entries' is a string. The description fully compensates by defining entries as a JSON array, enumerating the three allowed entry shapes with concrete examples, clarifying track_index=-1 as master, and explaining index semantics. This is far more than the bare schema provides.

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 opening sentence 'Remove one FX, several, or a whole chain, across one or many tracks, in one call' uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly describes batch scope. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like fx_move, fx_rename, fx_enable, and fx_disable, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly implies this tool is for removing FX and supports batch operations, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no same-purpose sibling, so the usage context is reasonably clear, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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