Remove asset from collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real constraint by limiting applicability to manual/character collections, but says nothing about irreversibility, the confirm requirement, or whether the underlying asset survives removal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, scope and identifier options; there is no filler or redundancy.

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, eight-parameter tool with a nested payload union and no output schema, the description is minimal but the schema carries the invocation detail. It omits any top-level warning about payload/payload_file exclusivity or the confirm gate, leaving the agent to discover those only by reading the schema.

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%, so all eight parameters, including the payload union and idempotency key, are documented in structured data. The description only echoes that request_id or vector_id may be used; the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (remove) and resource (asset from collection), and scopes it to 'manual or character' collections while naming the two accepted identifier kinds. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling add_asset_to_collection, though it never names that sibling 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The critical confirm gate and the collection-type restriction are buried in the schema rather than surfaced as usage context.

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