Remove asset from collection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the collection-type scope; it omits the mandatory confirm gate, idempotency key behavior, and reversibility of the removal, so it is a modest rather than rich contribution.

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 sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with 8 parameters, a nested payload, three mutually exclusive body input modes, and a required confirm flag, and there is no output schema. The description covers the core action but leaves the confirm requirement and body-input selection to the schema, which is adequate but thin for a destructive tool.

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 every parameter (account, confirm, payload, vector_id, request_id, payload_file, collection_id, Idempotency_Key) is already documented in the schema. The description echoes the two identifier options without adding format, precedence, or mutual-exclusivity detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 an asset from ... collection') and narrows the applicable collection kinds to 'manual or character'. It does not explicitly contrast with the obvious sibling add_asset_to_collection, but the inverse relationship is unambiguous from the 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?

Implicit guidance only: naming 'manual or character collection' and 'request ID or vector ID' signals which collection kinds and identifier paths apply. There is no statement of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or how this differs from add_asset_to_collection.

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