dashbrr_delete_readarr_queue_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: the boolean options (remove_from_client, blocklist, etc.) are only applied when set to true. This clarifies behavior beyond schema defaults and confirms the deletion target. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by essential parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

All 6 parameters are addressed in the description, and the operation is clearly a destructive delete with options. No output schema exists, but for a delete tool the return value is typically minimal. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical here.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the semantics of `id` (queue record id from a specific endpoint), `instance_id` (type-prefixed format), and the four boolean options (only apply when true). This goes far beyond the bare 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 resource: 'Delete an item from the Readarr download queue.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_sonarr_queue_item or delete_radarr_queue_item by naming Readarr explicitly.

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 by explaining how to obtain `id` (from dashbrr_get_readarr_queue) and requiring `instance_id` to be type-prefixed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the Readarr-specific wording makes the intended use unambiguous.

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