remove_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove effect' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive behavior.

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?

While concise with two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks necessary detail and structure, failing to convey purpose or usage in a meaningful way, which doesn't earn its place as a helpful 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?

Given the tool's potential for destructive behavior (implied by 'remove'), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving critical gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what it returns.

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 the parameter 'effect' documented as 'Effect to remove'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Remove effect' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates the verb 'remove' and resource 'effect', it doesn't specify what kind of effect (audio effect, visual effect, etc.) or from what context it's being removed, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'add_effect' or 'clear'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear', 'undo', or 'replace', leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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