dashbrr_delete_lidarr_queue_item

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the `instance_id` must be type-prefixed (e.g., 'lidarr-0'), and the option flags are only applied when set to true. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying input requirements and option semantics.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It includes a cross-reference for obtaining `id`, a format requirement for `instance_id`, and a behavioral note for the options. No waste.

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 simple delete operation with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what is deleted, how to get the id, the instance_id format, and option behavior. It does not mention potential side effects beyond the destructive annotation, but the destructive hint already covers that, so the description is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all six parameters and adds critical semantics for `instance_id` (type-prefix requirement) and the conditional behavior of the boolean options. While it doesn't explain each option in depth, the naming plus the conditional note provides enough meaning for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Delete an item from the Lidarr download queue.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dashbrr_delete_sonarr_queue_item by naming Lidarr, and from get_lidarr_queue by the delete action.

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 implies usage by stating the action and providing the source of the `id` parameter (from dashbrr_get_lidarr_queue), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling context helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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