Discogs: remove release from collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key nuance that instances are unique and a release can appear multiple times, preventing accidental removal of all copies. However, it doesn't mention whether the removal is irreversible, whether it affects other folders, or what the response contains. For a destructive action, this is a notable gap.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second provides essential prerequisite context. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and a critical prerequisite. It lacks details about return values or failure modes, but these are less critical for this tool. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to execute the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero descriptions for parameters. The description explains instance_id in depth, but folder_id and release_id are left to inference from their names and the tool context. While the names are intuitive, the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation, especially since folder_id's role is not explicitly stated.

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 action ('Remove'), a specific object ('a specific instance of a release'), and a location ('from a collection folder'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like discogs_add_to_collection and discogs_update_collection_item by focusing on removal of a particular instance.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite of instance_id from discogs_get_collection_items, which tells the agent when to use this tool (after fetching collection items) and why (multiple instances). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough that the agent can infer this is the tool for removing a single copy.

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