archive_played_episodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and does well: it flags the destructive nature ('Batch DELETE /me/episodes'), the confirmation threshold ('elicitation >50'), and the safe-preview path ('dry_run supported'). The term 'elicitation' is cryptic shorthand for confirmation prompting, and auth/rate-limit details are absent, but the core safety-relevant behaviors are disclosed.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action and packs selection criteria, endpoint, threshold, and dry-run support into minimal words with no filler. The 'elicitation >50' phrasing is compact but jargon-y, slightly harming readability; otherwise every element 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: target definition, endpoint, confirmation threshold, and dry-run escape hatch. It does not describe return values or response structure, though the response_format parameter (concise/detailed/json) partially compensates.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; per the baseline, the description needn't repeat them. It does add useful context linking 'resume_point.fully_played' to the selection logic and 'elicitation >50' to the confirm parameter, but it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove fully-played episodes from your episode library in bulk,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_saved_episodes (targeted removal) and mark_episode_played_plan (planning, not removal). It also pins down the selection criterion ('checks resume_point.fully_played'), leaving no ambiguity about what counts as a target.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the bulk-removal semantics and 'dry_run supported' hint at a cleanup workflow, but the description never names an alternative or states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when the user wants to remove a specific episode, remove_saved_episodes would be the choice). No explicit exclusions or routing guidance is given.

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