remove_components

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return behavior ('Returns the updated entity summary') and implicitly clarifying that removal physically deletes the component rather than merely toggling it, which is a meaningful behavioral distinction. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: action first, then return value, then exclusionary routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (what it removes and when not to use it) is front-loaded.

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 2-param, no-output-schema, idempotent-destructive tool, the description covers the action, parameter semantics, return value, and sibling routing. The only real gap is unstated behavior when a named component doesn't exist on the entity (error vs no-op), which an agent might want to know, but this is minor given idempotentHint=true and the overall simplicity.

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 50%: 'id' has a description but the 'components' property itself does not (only its items get 'Editor component type'). The description's 'by component name' fills this gap by clarifying that the array entries are component names, resolving the ambiguity of 'type' vs 'name' in the schema. It doesn't cover edge cases like nonexistent component names, but for a 2-param tool it compensates well.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), resource ('components from an entity'), and method ('by component name'), immediately distinguishing it from delete_entities and modify_entities. The return value is also disclosed ('Returns the updated entity summary'). This is exactly what an agent needs to tell this tool apart from its many siblings.

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 includes an explicit 'When NOT to use' section naming two alternatives (delete_entities for whole-entity deletion, modify_entities with components.<name>.enabled=false for disabling) with the precise conditions that select them. This is textbook routing guidance that leaves nothing to inference.

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