remove_joint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the removal action, but doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the joint doesn't exist, or what side effects occur (e.g., scene file modification). For a destructive operation, this lacks critical context.

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, concise sentence beginning with the action verb. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it an exemplary concise tool description.

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 no output schema, the one-line description is nearly sufficient. However, it could mention that the operation modifies a .tscn file or that the joint name must exist in that scene. Given the simplicity, it's still reasonably complete.

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 schema covers both parameters (joint_name and scene_path) with clear descriptions, so the coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('physics joint node') with a clear scope ('from a scene'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_joint, read_joint, and set_joint_param.

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 (when you need to remove a physics joint), but it provides no explicit context about when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like remove_node. There is no mention of prerequisites or relationship to other tools.

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