Remove manga from my list

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

Even though annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description goes beyond them with a specific, non-obvious behavioral fact: 'deleted: true whenever MAL accepts the request — including when the manga was never on the list to begin with.' It also warns that the action cannot be undone and clarifies that success does not prove prior existence, which is critical, non-obvious information for an agent at runtime.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent clause earns its place by disclosing irreversibility, the idempotency edge case, a confirmation alternative, and the auth requirement. The middle sentence is dense with parentheticals, but nothing is wasted 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 single-parameter destructive write with a rich output schema and annotational context, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, edge-case return semantics, a verification path, and authentication requirements. Combined with annotations and schema, there's no meaningful gap an agent would need to guess at.

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%; the manga_id property is well documented in the schema with type, bounds, sourcing guidance, and a naming mismatch caveat. The description text itself adds no separate parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 holds since the structured schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Remove' and an explicit resource ('manga entry from the authenticated user's list'). The resource scope cleanly distinguishes it from both the read-only get_* siblings and from its direct counterpart delete_my_anime_list_item, while the name and title reinforce that it targets manga, not anime.

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 names the sibling get_my_manga_list as the correct alternative when confirmation is needed ('check get_my_manga_list first if you need to confirm'), and states the login prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_my_manga_status or delete_my_anime_list_item, but the scope is clear enough that this is a minor gap.

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