Albert Heijn: Remove from Favourite List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the identifier-provenance requirement but says nothing about permanence, list lifecycle when emptied, or failure behavior for non-member products, which would be valuable context for a destructive operation.

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 with zero filler; the operation is front-loaded and the dependency hint follows immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple two-parameter, fully-required, fully-documented mutation whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Minor gaps remain around outcome/error semantics and whether removal is reversible, but nothing essential is missing.

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% with both parameters documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of list_id provenance largely restates the schema's own description, adding no new syntax or constraint detail for product_ids.

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 and resource ("Remove products from a named Albert Heijn favorite list"), which an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling ah_add_to_favorite_list and from ah_remove_from_shopping_list (different resource: shopping list vs favorite list). The scope (products, named list) is precise.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite lookup path: "Get list_id from ah_get_favorite_lists," which routes the agent to the right sibling for the identifier. It does not state any when-not conditions or error cases (e.g. product not in list), so it falls short of a full 5.

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