Remove an entry from your AniList list

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: it 'cannot be undone' and that calling it again on an already-deleted id 'errors rather than silently succeeding.' This enriches the annotation signal with concrete consequences, which is exactly what behavioral transparency should provide.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by essential caveats (login, ID source, irreversibility, error behavior). Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter delete operation with a full schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary context: authentication requirement, scope (own list), ID lookup path, irreversibility, and non-idempotent error behavior. The output schema exists but doesn't require explanation, as this is a straightforward mutation.

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?

The schema already fully describes listEntryId as 'The list ENTRY id to delete (not the media id)' (100% coverage). The description adds practical guidance on where to obtain this ID ('get it from get_user_list'), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent source the correct value, so a slight premium over the baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an entry from the authenticated user's own AniList list.' It also distinguishes the correct identifier type ('NOT the media id') and references get_user_list, making it immediately clear which sibling tool (e.g., update_list_entry, add_list_entry) this contrasts with.

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 provides clear context: login is required, the entry must be from the user's own list, and the ID must be obtained from get_user_list. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like update_list_entry, the purpose is unambiguous and the prerequisite is stated, effectively guiding when to use this tool.

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