remove_partner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly notes that the user's own photos are not touched and that the side effect is revoking their access. This is valuable transparency for a mutating operation and goes beyond merely restating the tool's name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place: the action, the non-destructive clarification, the side effect, the argument explanation, and the return value. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action, the effect on the target user, the argument semantics, and the return type. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it successfully.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining 'user_id: The user to unshare with.' This adds role semantics beyond the bare schema property. For a single required parameter, this is sufficient guidance.

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: 'Stop sharing this account's library with a user.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_partner, update_partner, and list_partners. It also reassures that the user's own photos are untouched, which sharpens the purpose.

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 for when to use the tool: when the account should no longer share its library with a given user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it appropriately among the partner-related siblings.

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