remove_saved_shows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is destructive only when dry_run=false, that it first cross-checks which IDs are saved, and that it defaults to a safe preview. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool, though it stops short of describing edge cases or failure modes.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action, includes the endpoint for precision, and states the default safe behavior plus the commit flag. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: an agent knows what it does, how to preview, and how to commit. The only minor gap is that the exact contents/shape of a PLAN are not described, but the schema's response_format parameter partially mitigates this.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by clarifying that show_ids are not blindly removed—they are first cross-checked against saved shows—and by reaffirming that dry_run controls preview vs. commit. This goes slightly beyond the schema's raw definitions.

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 ('Bulk-remove'), a clear resource ('shows from your library'), and the underlying endpoint (DELETE /me/shows). It also distinguishes itself from single-show or episode removal tools by emphasizing bulk operation and cross-checking saved IDs.

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 clearly explains the workflow: preview a PLAN by default, and pass dry_run=false to commit. This gives the agent an actionable usage pattern. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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