Remove Doc From Collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, so the key safety question is answered structurally; the description reinforces this by stating that the document and collection rules are untouched, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation. It stops short of covering permissions, behavior when the doc is not in the allow-list, or error semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the critical non-effect clarified immediately after.

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?

With an output schema available and full parameter documentation, the remaining burden is behavioral scope, which the description addresses by ruling out deletion and rule changes. Minor gaps remain around idempotency (annotations say non-idempotent for what reads like a set-removal) and no-op/error behavior.

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% and includes AFFiNE-specific guidance (collectionId from list_collections or create_collection, workspaceId omission rule), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb and resource (remove a document id from an AFFiNE collection allow-list) and immediately distinguishes the operation from deletion via the negative clause. An agent can tell this apart from add_doc_to_collection, delete_collection, trash_doc and delete_doc without inspecting the schema.

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 'does not delete the document or change collection rules' clause clarifies scope, which implicitly guides usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative for the inverse operation (add_doc_to_collection). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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