auth_remove_library

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states that a token is detached but does not explain whether this invalidates the token, affects other sessions, or requires specific permissions. The one-liner is too sparse to make the behavior transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is far from complete. It omits when to use it, what the parameters mean, and what happens after detachment. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 explain the parameters, but it mentions neither session_token nor library_name. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet no meaning is added about formats, constraints, or how they relate to the detach operation. This is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('detach') and resource ('library token from a session'), making the operation clear. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling auth_add_library and auth_revoke, which represent the inverse or different auth operations. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows what action this performs.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that auth_add_library is the inverse operation or explain scenarios like removing a library from a session after reauthentication. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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