spotify_remove_saved_albums

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It omits that this is a destructive, irreversible library mutation, whether authentication/scope is required, and how it handles invalid or already-unsaved album IDs. 'Remove' signals mutation but nothing beyond that.

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 the action and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is sparse rather than richly structured.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable. But with no annotations and no output schema, the destructive nature, auth prerequisites, and result behavior are left completely undocumented.

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% — album_ids is fully documented in the schema as an array of Spotify album IDs. The description adds no format, batching (max 50), or failure semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('remove') and resource ('albums from the current user's library'), which is clear and distinguishable from spotify_remove_saved_tracks and spotify_remove_from_playlist by name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings in the text.

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 purpose makes usage reasonably inferable — remove albums the user previously saved — but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance (e.g., how it differs from spotify_remove_saved_tracks or unfollowing an artist).

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