shelf_booking_remove_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as whether removing an asset from a booking affects booking status, what happens with invalid IDs, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It delivers the core purpose efficiently.

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 is a mutation with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., booking must exist), parameter semantics for three of four parameters, and any behavioral details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25%, with just orgId documented. The description implies that assetIds and kitIds can be specified ('assets and/or kits') and that bookingId is the target ('from a booking'), but it does not name the parameters, clarify that both arrays are optional, or explain orgId defaults or the required bookingId.

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 states a specific verb (Remove), resource (assets and/or kits), and scope (from a booking). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like shelf_booking_add_assets and shelf_kit_remove_assets, which operate on different resources or directions.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shelf_booking_add_assets or shelf_kit_remove_assets. It merely restates the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context and prerequisites.

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