remove_saved_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses that the tool is a mutation (DELETE), that it cross-checks saved state before acting, that it defaults to a non-destructive PLAN preview, and exactly how to commit (dry_run=false). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is exemplary disclosure.

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?

A single dense sentence packs resource, endpoint, safety behavior, and commit mechanism with zero filler. The action is front-loaded ('Remove episodes from your library') and every clause 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety default, and invocation thoroughly, and the schema handles parameter details. The only gap is what the PLAN or commit result actually looks like (e.g., whether already-unsaved IDs are reported or silently skipped), which an output schema would normally cover.

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% and all three parameters already have rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful layer: the cross-check behavior clarifies how episode_ids are treated — only actually-saved episodes are removed, which is semantics not present in the schema. This justifies a 4.

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 episodes from your library') and names the underlying endpoint (DELETE /me/episodes). The distinctive safety behavior — cross-checking saved state and previewing a PLAN before committing — clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_saved_items or remove_saved_shows.

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 gives clear usage context: this is a plan-first removal that verifies which episodes are actually saved, and the dry_run=false commit flag tells the agent how to invoke it for real deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus the many other removal-related siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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