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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the actual blast radius — the file survives in the owner's library and mounted scenes keep it — plus the no-op behavior with `removed: false`. It also states the authorization model (owner only, requires `write`) and cost (`$0`), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the verb and effect, then layers the important caveats (not unmounting, no-op, permissions, cost) in short clauses. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema it still communicates the meaningful return signal (`removed: false`) and covers idempotency, authorization, and cost — everything needed to call it safely. The one gap is leaving the `project_id` parameter undefined for a two-required-parameter mutation.

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%: `asset_id` is documented in the schema, but `project_id` has no description in either place, and the description only alludes to the piece/owner relationship without mapping it to `project_id`. The description adds framing but no concrete parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Removes a file from a piece's material") and immediately bounds it against the two nearest confusions: the file is not deleted from the library, and removing is not unmounting. An agent can distinguish this from assign_material or a mount/unmount operation without opening another schema.

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?

Gives real usage context: it is the mechanism for declining a third party's contribution, and it is explicitly distinguished from unmounting a scene. It does not name a sibling tool (e.g. accept_contribution) as the alternative path, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than enumerated.

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