Remove from list

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds context about the default list and named lists, plus the user-intent condition. However, it doesn't describe side effects like behavior on missing posts or idempotency details, which are partially covered by annotations. With annotations present, this is moderate value.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('Remove a post...'), and the usage condition is a separate concise sentence. Every word contributes to understanding when and how to use the tool.

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 mutation tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, default scope, and user-intent condition. Annotations handle the destructive and idempotent profile, and the schema references list_reading_lists for list names. It doesn't explain edge cases, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% – both parameters have detailed descriptions (post URL/hex id, list default and reference to list_reading_lists). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific action: 'Remove a post from the reading list (default) or one of the user's named lists.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like save_to_list (opposite) and list_reading_lists (list names) by focusing on removal and specifying the default list. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description explicitly says 'Only use when the user asks,' which sets a clear usage boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use, but the schema references list_reading_lists for list names, and the purpose itself implies when it's appropriate. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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