remove_assets_from_album

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states side effects: 'modifies album membership' and confirms no deletion. It also describes the return value structure. This adequately discloses behavior for a non-destructive operation.

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 relatively short (three sentences plus Args and Returns sections). Every sentence adds value: purpose, side effect, parameter details, output. Could be slightly more compact, but no filler.

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 no annotations and no provided output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, parameter roles, side effects, and return value. It is self-contained and sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 has 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description fully explains both parameters: album_id as 'Album UUID' and asset_ids as 'List of asset UUIDs'. It also describes the output, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 assets from an album without deleting them.' It specifies the resource (album), verb (remove), and key constraint (assets remain in library and other albums). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_assets and add_assets_to_album.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Use this to un-curate mistakenly added assets.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, the use case is specific and implies context. Sibling differentiation is not explicit but is evident from the description.

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