Remove a rating

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

The description discloses the two-call confirmation workflow ('call once without a token to see what would be removed'), which is not captured in annotations, and clarifies that destruction is scoped to the rating only. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose and effect, the second gives a critical usage instruction. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential confirmation flow and clarifies that the game remains in the library. Combined with detailed parameter descriptions and annotations, it is almost complete, though it does not mention edge cases like attempting to remove a non-existent rating.

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 'game' and 'confirmation_token' are fully described in the input schema, including the token's purpose. The description reinforces the token flow but adds no new parameter-level meaning, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Delete') with a clear resource ('your rating for a game') and adds scope ('keeping the game in your library'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'remove_game_from_library'. This unambiguously states 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 phrase 'keeping the game in your library' implies the differentiation from removing the game entirely, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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