create_sync_collection_remove

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

The annotations already establish this is a non-read (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive write, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds the concrete HTTP endpoint (POST /sync/collection/remove) and the prerequisite to read the matching GET or /schema response before calling. It does not describe effects on sync state or whether removals are permanent, but that is partially covered by destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: a purpose sentence, the endpoint, and one argument line with guidance. Purpose is front-loaded, and each line earns its place. No filler or repetition of the schema's structural details.

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 write tool with a free-form body, the description's pointer to the /schema endpoint and matching GET is the right level of guidance, and the output schema exists so return-value details need not be explained. It is adequate but leaves gaps: it never clarifies whether items are identified by ID or full objects, or whether this is a batch operation, relying on the agent to fetch the schema first.

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 body is an opaque additionalProperties:true object, so the description must compensate. It identifies body as the request payload and, crucially, routes the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for field discovery — genuinely useful given the schema gives zero field information. It still omits the actual expected fields and any item-shape or batch semantics, leaving discovery as a homework step.

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 action and resource ('Remove items from collection'), which clearly distinguishes the collection target from sibling _remove tools like create_sync_watchlist_remove, create_sync_favorites_remove, or create_sync_history_remove. Naming the resource itself carries the differentiation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the inverse sibling create_sync_collection, and some clarity comes from parsing the tool's own name.

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 use case is implied by the verb and resource — call this when the user wants to remove items from their sync collection rather than add or list them. It offers a prerequisite ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first') but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the sibling create_sync_collection or the list_sync_collection_* endpoints.

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