Remove From Collection

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive behavior FRom schema: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by explicitly clarifying that removing from a collection does not delete the item from the library. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or what happens when the item is not in the specified collection, so the behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation. The Args section and the library-targeting note are direct and non-redundanthip. It loses one point because the Args section mostly repeats parameter names without adding much explanatory depth.

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 operation, the description covers the main invocation rules and clarifies the non-destructive nature of the action. However, it lacks guidance on error cases, permission requirements, or behavior when the item is not in the collection. An output schema is present, so return-value documentation is less critical, but some operational context is still missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates 'item_key' and 'collection_id' with only names, and provides minimal additional semantic detail. The library_id/library_type targeting rule is helpful, but the core parameters are not explained beyond what their field titles already communicate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an item from a collection without deleting it from the library.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from related tools like delete_item and delete_collection, and makes the tool's primary purpose immediately obvious.

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 gives clear guidance for choosing between default and non-default library targeting ('Pass both library_id and library_type to target another library; omit both to use the configured default'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as remove_tags, delete_item, or trash_item, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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