lr_delete_project_album

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait — the album is removed but catalog photos are preserved — which is valuable. However, it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and what happens if the album does not exist.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key side effect. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 described. For a destructive mutation with no annotations, the definition covers the main data-safety concern (photos survive) but leaves permissions, reversibility, and parameter provenance unaddressed.

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?

There is one required parameter (album_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its format, origin, or how to obtain it (e.g., from lr_list_albums). The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (Delete) and resource (project album) and scopes it to albums 'created by this server,' which distinguishes it from lr_add_to_project_album and lr_create_project_album. The clarifying clause that photos remain makes the exact effect unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative (e.g., use lr_add_to_project_album for membership changes), and no stated prerequisites. An agent can infer intent but must guess at edge cases.

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