Remove from Collection

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating it is a mutation ('MUTATES'), noting idempotency, requiring SF_API_KEY, and clarifying the exact effect (paper stays in library). This extra context earns a score above the baseline of 3.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, addressing method, mutation effect, idempotency, and authentication requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers core operation, side effects, idempotency, and auth. It does not explain error handling or behavior when collection/paper does not exist, but these are minor gaps given the clear behavioral context and sibling differentiation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic information: that collection_name and collection_id are alternatives ('OR'), implying at least one should be provided, which is not enforced by the schema. This clarifies usage beyond the schema alone.

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 that the tool removes a paper from a collection, and specifies that it can be addressed by collection_id OR collection_name. It also explicitly notes that the paper stays in the library, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unsave_paper that remove from the library entirely. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear scope.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and that it is idempotent. It implicitly guides usage by stating the paper stays in the library, suggesting when not to use it (if removal from library is intended). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, missing a small opportunity for clearer differentiation.

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