Remove from library

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that the previous state is snapshotted before the write and can be reverted with nuvio_undo, giving the agent a clear safety profile beyond the raw annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and key identifiers are front-loaded, and the snapshot/undo note is a useful, compact addition.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and undo safety, and annotations handle the destructive profile. However, it omits the confirm/preview requirement and does not describe return behavior or side effects, so the agent must rely on the schema for the full invocation contract.

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 only 33% (only 'confirm' has a description). The description helps by naming content_id and content_type and by indicating the operation targets a profile's library, which maps to profile_id. However, it does not explain the confirm/preview gate or content_type value semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('items from a profile's library'), and the identifying parameters ('content_id + content_type'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvio_add_to_library and nuvio_get_library.

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?

Usage is implied by the explicit remove action, but the description does not state when to choose this over alternatives such as nuvio_add_to_library or nuvio_get_library. The only related guidance is 'revert with nuvio_undo', which is post-action advice rather than tool-selection guidance.

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