remove_roms_from_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful specificity: the effect is limited to removing ROM-collection associations, not deleting ROM entities. This goes beyond what the annotations convey about the scope of the write.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying 'without deleting ROMs' is placed immediately after, making the sentence both efficient and informative.

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 two-parameter write operation, the description plus schema plus annotations give enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly: purpose is clear, parameter names are self-descriptive, and an output schema exists so return values need not be documented. Missing are explicit usage guidance versus siblings and behavior on partial or invalid ROM IDs, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond paraphrasing the names (collection, ROM IDs). It does not explain that rom_ids is an array that can contain multiple integers, that both parameters are required, or any constraints or validation behavior. The schema provides types and requiredness, but the description fails to compensate for the absent parameter documentation.

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?

Description states a precise action ('Remove ROM IDs from a collection') and explicitly clarifies the non-destructive scope ('without deleting ROMs'), distinguishing it from delete_collection and aligning it as the inverse of add_roms_to_collection. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: modifying a collection's membership rather than deleting the collection or the ROMs themselves. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over delete_collection or add_roms_to_collection, leaving the guidance to inference.

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