remove_from_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an operational trait — auto-chunking at 40 URIs per request — but omits behavior relevant to a destructive removal such as permission requirements, whether the action is reversible, or confirmation of side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and secondary scope, followed by the chunking note and parameter details. Reasonably tight with no obvious filler, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose.

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. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description does not cover permissions or reversibility, leaving behavioral context thinner than ideal.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted URI types (track, album, episode, show, audiobook, artist, user, playlist) and gives concrete examples. This is a meaningful addition over the bare array-of-strings 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus a secondary scope: 'Remove items from the user's library, or unfollow artists, users, and playlists.' This distinguishes it in substance from the sibling remove_playlist_items (library vs. playlist), though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 implies when to use it (removing library items / unfollowing) but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as remove_playlist_items for playlist-level edits. Usage is inferable from siblings but not spelled out.

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