remove_lightbox_membership_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or reversibility. The 'counterpart to apply' hint is helpful but not enough for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes a useful cross-reference. No wasted 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?

Despite its simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the tool is a mutation with no annotations, and the description gives no parameter details, no behavioral notes, and no elaboration on 'pinned-assets'. Significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (asset_ids, asset_group_membership_id). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving an agent without guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 states a specific action ('Remove pinned-assets') on a clear resource ('lightbox membership'), and the phrase 'counterpart to apply' distinguishes it from the related apply tool. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 identifies the tool as the counterpart to 'apply', implying it should be used to undo an apply operation. However, it doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for understanding when to use it.

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