remove_favourite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this mutates account state and requires confirmation. It omits reversibility, idempotency, what happens if the product is not already a favourite, and whether confirm=false causes a rejection rather than a silent no-op.

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 with the action first and the precondition second; nothing is wasted. Slightly terse given the mutation involved.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter mutation, though, the description should say what happens on confirm=false or on a product that is not currently favourited.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of confirm (a guard for the mutation), which the bare schema does not convey, but leaves product_id undefined and does not say what value identifies a product.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a product from favourites'), which clearly distinguishes it from add_favourite, is_favourite, and favourites siblings. Missing only an explicit pointer to those alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is the de-favourite operation and adds a hard prerequisite ('needs confirm=true'). It does not state when not to use it, or route to add_favourite/is_favourite as alternatives.

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