dashbrr_delete_radarr_queue_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about the options being 'only applied when set to true,' which clarifies their conditional behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether files are removed from the client by default or what happens when remove_from_client is false. This leaves some ambiguity about the deletion's scope.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation, the second clarifies parameters and option semantics. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and a destructive action. The description covers all required parameters and the behavior of optional booleans, which is the core information needed to invoke it safely. It does not describe the return value or error handling, but for a simple delete operation that is often acceptable. Given the good annotation coverage, this is reasonably 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 does: it explains `id` as the queue record id from dashbrr_get_radarr_queue, `instance_id` must be type-prefixed with an example, and groups the four boolean options with a rule that they are only applied when true. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't individually explain each option's effect, which is partially inferable from names.

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: 'Delete an item from the Radarr download queue.' It specifies the resource (Radarr queue) and the verb (delete). It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'Radarr' explicitly, contrasting with delete_sonarr_queue_item, delete_lidarr_queue_item, and delete_readarr_queue_item.

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?

Provides clear usage context: explains that `id` comes from dashbrr_get_radarr_queue and that `instance_id` must be type-prefixed (e.g., `radarr-1`). While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X', the Radarr-specific naming and sibling context make the intended use obvious. No exclusions are stated, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting the correct tool.

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