Remove a game entirely (irreversible)

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond by listing all destroyed data types, stating there is no undo, and detailing the required confirmation token flow. This rich context is essential for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded with 'IRREVERSIBLE.' and the full impact list. Every phrase is necessary and actionable; no redundancy or padding.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully captures the tool's destructive nature, the preview-then-confirm flow, and the expected behavior of the confirmation token. An agent has all needed information to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is described. The description adds value by explaining the confirmation_token's role in the two-call workflow, reinforcing the parameter's semantic purpose beyond the basic schema.

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 specific language ('Wipes everything') and enumerates the exact resources affected (logs, playthroughs, review, rating, track time, library entries, like status). This clearly distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like remove_rating or delete_playthrough.

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 provides explicit context: this is for complete removal and irreversibility, and it spells out the two-step confirmation workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for partial removal, so it lacks an explicit 'when-not' clause.

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