remove_from_collection

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: 'Safe, key-preserving' and the requirement for the item's current version. This goes beyond the structured annotations by describing the tool's non-destructive nature and concurrency mechanism.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and key behavior, and the second sentence clearly explains the one non-obvious parameter. There is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what it does, what it preserves), the version requirement, and a pointer to a related tool. It is concise but includes the critical information needed to use the tool correctly, though it could add a bit more about failure modes.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only explains the 'version' parameter, and even that is a pointer to 'update_item' rather than a full explanation. 'key' and 'collection_key' are left unspecified, so the description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('item from one collection'), and immediately distinguishes itself from more destructive operations by noting 'it stays in the library and any other collections it's filed under.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like 'delete_item_permanently' and 'trash_item'.

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 phrase 'it stays in the library and any other collections' provides clear context for when to use this tool (removing from a single collection) versus alternatives that delete or trash the item. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast is strong enough to guide selection.

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