remove_asset_from_group

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the operationally critical fact that a preview is returned first and that removal only happens once confirm is True. It also explains the confirm_removal alias, so an agent won't mistakenly treat two booleans as conflicting requirements — context the annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose statement and the safety note are front-loaded, and the Args block is scannable and free of filler. There is minor duplication between the safety sentence and the confirm argument entry, but nothing that wastes the reader's attention.

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?

For a destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and six parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition supplies what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the preview/confirm gate and a description of every argument. It does not state what the preview contains or what happens if the asset is already unlinked, but those are secondary.

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 carry all parameter meaning. The Args block covers all six parameters and adds real meaning beyond the bare titles: field_type gets concrete examples ('HEADLINE', 'MARKETING_IMAGE'), and confirm_removal is identified as an older alias that works interchangeably with confirm. Some entries (customer_id, asset_group_id) only restate the parameter name, which is why it is not a 5.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Remove an asset from an asset group'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling add_assets_to_group without opening a schema. It falls short of 5 only because it never names or contrasts an alternative 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 definition gives a usable invocation path (call once for a preview, call again with confirm=True to commit), which is genuine when/how guidance for this operation. However, it offers no alternatives or exclusions — it does not point to add_assets_to_group for the inverse case or indicate what to do if the asset is not in the group.

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