Remove cards from the collection

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 explicitly notes the operation is local ('no API'), describes the clamping behavior on over-removal, and explains the do-nothing behavior for ambiguous bare names. This covers key edge cases and side effects, though it could mention whether the file is modified in-place or what happens on success.

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, front-loading the core action and then providing essential edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the core operation, the local-only behavior, and handles ambiguity and over-removal. The sibling context further clarifies its role among collection tools.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'lines' parameter already documented via examples. The tool description adds interpretative meaning by explaining that bare names may be ambiguous if they match multiple printings, and that over-removal clamps to zero. This goes beyond the schema's basic format description.

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 'Decrement or drop cards in the collection file,' specifying both the action (decrement/drop) and the resource (collection file). It also adds scope with 'matched against the file itself (no API),' distinguishing it from API-based tools and siblings like collection_add.

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 the tool (for local collection removal) and provides important usage constraints: a bare name matching multiple printings is ambiguous and changes nothing, and over-removal clamps to zero with a note. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the guidance on ambiguity effectively tells the user to specify printings to ensure successful removal.

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