remove_play_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does meaningful work: it discloses destructiveness, the non-obvious scope escalation (one row vs. whole category), and the confirm=true gate on the dangerous path. It still omits permission/auth requirements, irreversibility, and the significance of wait_ms, which suggests asynchronous execution.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the destructive scope-escalation rule leads, followed by the confirm requirement and the safety warning. Every clause carries operational information.

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?

The output schema means return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key destructive mechanic well. But for an unannotated destructive tool with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, leaving four parameters and the irreversibility of the delete unspecified is a real gap.

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% across 6 parameters, yet the description only explains two of them (row_index's empty-string semantics and confirm's role). The required slug and category, plus collection_id and wait_ms, remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a Play Records row'), and adds the critical scope distinction that an empty row_index escalates the operation to an entire category. The trailing 'Never DELETE GAME' warning explicitly disambiguates it from the game-deletion siblings, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.

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 states a clear operating condition (row_index empty ⇒ category delete, which needs confirm=true), which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when to reach for remove_play_record versus set_play_record or delete_game_copy, so guidance beyond the conditional remains implied.

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