remove_user_list_attribute_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the operation ('Remove values') without noting whether the operation is destructive, whether it affects existing values not in the list, any permission requirements, or the behavior when values are not present. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is well front-loaded. It contains no redundant information and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose. It is appropriately minimal for the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameter details, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, or side effects. While adequate as a minimal baseline, it leaves gaps in behavioral expectations that an agent would need to infer or guess.

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 100%, so all four parameters (values, user_id, user_db_id, list_attribute_name) are already described with clear types and meanings in the schema. The description adds no further parameter context, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the weight.

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 the action: 'Remove values from a list attribute for a user'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the contrast with the sibling tool 'add_user_list_attribute_values' makes the direction (remove vs add) 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 tool's use case (removing values from a list attribute) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The sibling 'add_user_list_attribute_values' suggests a complementary operation, but no such comparison is made.

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