remove_buy_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool removes an item 'entirely,' which implies a destructive action, but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or what happens on success. For a destructive tool, this is insufficient.

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, each serving a purpose: the first defines the action and scope, the second adds a crucial requirement. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has low complexity (2 params, no output schema). The description covers the core functionality and authentication, but does not mention return values, errors, or idempotency. While adequate for a simple removal, it leaves some gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'card+finish row,' which is already implied by the isFoil parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (remove), the resource (card+finish row from buy-list), and the scope (authenticated user's buy-list). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like add_buy_list or update_buy_list by specifying removal.

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 includes a prerequisite (IWMM_API_KEY), which helps the agent know when it can use the tool. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools for similar tasks, the sibling tool names provide enough context to infer that this is the correct tool for removing items from the buy list.

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