Remove a media from a project's favourites

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: removing a non-favourite is a no-op. It does not clarify whether the underlying media is deleted (only the favourite status) or note any permission requirements, which would be valuable for 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?

A single sentence with the usage condition front-loaded and zero filler. The colon construction is marginally awkward but costs almost nothing in length.

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 unfavourite toggle with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the trigger and the idempotent no-op behavior. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The only meaningful omission is clarifying that the media itself is not deleted.

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% and all three parameters, including the requestId idempotency contract, are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (removes) and resource (a media from a project's favourites) and is easily separable from the sibling growwer_favourite_media by its inverse action. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the intent is unambiguous. The phrasing 'removes it' after a colon is slightly loose but readable in context.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: 'when the user no longer wants a media among the favourites of one of their projects.' That is a usable when-to-use statement. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. growwer_favourite_media, growwer_discard_media), so it falls short of a 5.

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