unsubscribe_from_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it reveals the key safety trait: the default is a read-only 'PLAN naming the show', and changes only happen when 'dry_run=false' is passed. It also exposes the underlying DELETE endpoint and that this is a library mutation. It does not discuss reversibility or auth, but the preview/commit distinction is substantive behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action, but it contains awkward artifacts such as 'removal verb:' and the dangling 'After confirming what it is —' clause that harms readability. It earns some credit for compactness, but the phrasing is not clean enough for a high structure score.

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 one-required-parameter removal tool, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, via which endpoint, and how the default dry-run-then-commit flow works. The schema fills in parameter formats and response_format options. The main remaining gap is a fuzzy notion of 'confirming what it is,' which is not fully explained.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description is not required to re-document them. The phrase 'ONE saved show' adds a small semantic nuance to show_id, and the dry_run commit note mirrors the schema. No meaningful parameter semantics are added 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Remove ONE saved show from your library', identifies the exact endpoint (DELETE /me/shows), and immediately distinguishes itself from remove_saved_shows (bulk) and delete_playlist_snapshot (local snapshots). This leaves no doubt about what the tool does and how it differs from its closest siblings.

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?

It names the relevant alternatives in context ('remove_saved_shows (bulk)', 'delete_playlist_snapshot (local snapshots)'), and the single-vs-bulk contrast gives the agent an explicit routing cue. The default preview behavior and the dry_run=false commit instruction also tell the agent how to invoke it safely. It does not spell out an exhaustive when-not list, but the guidance is clear enough.

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