remove_library_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the destructive effect (removes file records), the non-destructive effect on disk, the need to rebuild scan results, and the mandatory user confirmation. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, the second clarifies the key non-effect and consequence, and the third gives an explicit instruction. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, side effects, recovery path, and required user consent. The reference to scan_library and the explicit warning make this complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and safely.

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 has 100% coverage with library_id described as 'Library ID (dbID), from list_libraries'. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond 'of a library', which is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove every file record of a library from the Tdarr database') and the resource affected, and it explicitly distinguishes this from touching files on disk. It also names the sibling tool scan_library for rebuilding scan results, making differentiation easy.

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 explicitly says to ask the user before calling, and it explains when this operation is appropriate and what it does not do (touch files on disk), plus the follow-up action needed (rebuild with scan_library). This gives clear usage context and an alternative tool.

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