remove_asset_from_collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it reads back object count, returns a stable payload with already_absent=True when the asset is missing, and includes a verified field. It does not cover permission requirements or failure modes.

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 mostly concise and front-loads the core action, but the fragment 'must match the share type the collection was created with' lacks a subject and disrupts the structure. This poorly formed sentence reduces clarity despite the overall brevity.

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 an idempotent destructive mutation, the description supplies the return payload fields, idempotency behavior, and a parameter constraint. It omits permission or side-effect details, but with full schema coverage and clear annotations, it is largely complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a semantic constraint for the share_type parameter ('must match the share type the collection was created with'), which goes beyond the schema's enum description, though the sentence is grammatically incomplete.

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 and resource ('Removes an asset from a collection') and explicitly names the inverse sibling ('inverse of add_asset_to_collection'), allowing an agent to distinguish it from add_asset_to_collection without opening either 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?

The inverse relationship with add_asset_to_collection gives clear usage context for removing an asset. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like delete_collection or remove_asset_from_collection, and no when-not conditions are provided.

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