remove_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: removing a component also removes its children. However, it does not mention other relevant aspects such as whether removal is permanent, if there are any safety checks, or what happens to references. The disclosed cascade behavior is useful but the overall transparency is minimal.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds an important exception, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity, full schema parameter coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and the cascade behavior. It could mention edge cases like object-not-found behavior, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool 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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The phrase 'from a cell' loosely aligns with the 'cellName' parameter but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 ('an object from a cell'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_object, clone_object, and move_object. It also adds a meaningful qualifier about component children, ensuring the scope is 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?

The description implies usage when an object needs to be removed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'from a cell' context provides some guidance, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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