remove_collection_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'remove' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but the description doesn't state whether the removal is permanent, whether any validation occurs (e.g., error if item doesn't exist), or whether there are cascading effects (e.g., on watchlist or pricing data). With zero annotation coverage for a destructive mutation, this is under-disclosed.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place. There is nothing extraneous.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations. The output schema exists, so return values aren't required, but the description should explain more about the removal semantics (permanence, error behavior, impact on related data). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, the description is inadequate to fully guide an agent.

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 0% and there is only 1 parameter (item_id). The description names the resource but provides no information about what item_id refers to, its format constraints, or how to obtain a valid ID. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate but only implies the ID identifies the collection row without explaining semantics.

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 'Remove one local collection row' has a specific verb (remove) and resource (local collection row). It clearly states the action on a collection item. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sister tools like update_collection_item or add_collection_item, the verb 'remove' is distinct enough and matches the tool name remove_collection_item, distinguishing it from most siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that add_collection_item and update_collection_item are the complementary operations, nor does it note any prerequisites (e.g., the item must exist before removal). The 'local' qualifier hints at a context but doesn't explain it.

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