Remove from Library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action ('remove') without addressing permanence, side effects, or idempotency. It does clarify the scope ('personal library') but omits behavioral nuances expected of 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. Direct and efficient.

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 single-parameter removal tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the operation. It could mention reversibility but is otherwise adequate for the low complexity.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter (paper_id) including acceptable identifier types, so parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource ('a saved paper from your personal library') and the accepted identifier formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like library_add (adds) and library_list (lists).

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 conveys a clear use case: when the user wants to delete a paper from their personal library. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unmistakable, warranting a 4.

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