pws_remove_segment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it defaults to preview mode (safety guard) and verifies the segment no longer exists after removal. It also constrains usage to unfinished shows. However, it does not disclose the full confirmation flow (e.g., that confirmed=true is needed to finalize), which is a meaningful behavioral gap.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. 'Verifies that the segment no longer exists' and 'Defaults to preview' add essential behavioral and safety context without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, the unfinished-show constraint, preview default, and post-removal verification. However, it lacks detail on the confirmation flow, potential side effects, and return behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity and rich sibling set, more completeness is expected.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'segmentId' refers to an existing match/angle and that 'preview' defaults to true. However, it completely omits the 'confirmed' parameter, which is crucial for executing the actual removal. This partial coverage is insufficient given the low 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 clearly states the action ('PREVIEW OR REMOVE'), the exact resource ('ONE EXISTING MATCH/ANGLE'), and the context ('from an unfinished player-company show'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pws_update_segment (which modifies rather than removes) and other removal tools (which target workers, stables, or storylines, not segments).

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 implies the use case: previewing or removing a segment from an unfinished show, with a default to preview for safety. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use pws_update_segment instead) or state exclusions (e.g., finished shows). The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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