remove_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is 'Remove' but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (permanent deletion), reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the parameter explanations are brief but sufficient given the simple schema.

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 complexity (simple mutation with 2 parameters), the description covers the basic action and parameters. However, with no annotations and an output schema present (which isn't detailed here), it lacks behavioral context like side effects or permissions. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps for safe agent operation.

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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage). It specifies that 'bookshelf_id' identifies the bookshelf and 'book_id' identifies the book to remove, clarifying their roles. Since there are only 2 parameters and the description covers both adequately, it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and target resource ('a book from a bookshelf'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'move_book' (which relocates) and 'add_book' (which adds). However, it doesn't specify whether this is a permanent deletion or just removal from the shelf, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_book' (which might relocate instead of remove) or prerequisites (e.g., whether the book must exist on the shelf). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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