radarr_delete_rootfolder

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

The description includes the warning 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data,' which reinforces the destructiveHint annotation but does not add substantial new context beyond it. It lacks specifics about what data is deleted (e.g., associated movie files, configuration) or whether the action is reversible, though the annotations already flag destructiveness.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action ('Delete root folders') and then emphasize the destructive nature. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant filler.

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 one parameter, the description is generally sufficient, especially given the annotations and output schema. However, it fails to clarify the scope of 'deletes data'—whether it removes only the root folder configuration or also associated files—and lacks any mention of prerequisites or side effects, which could mislead an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter. While the parameter name 'id' is self-explanatory for a deletion operation, the description should clarify that 'id' refers to the root folder ID to be deleted. This missing compensation for low schema coverage leaves room for ambiguity.

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') and the resource ('root folders'), with the verb 'Delete' distinguishing it from sibling operations like create, list, and get. It is directly aligned with the tool name and leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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 usage is implied from the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'root folders', making it obvious when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives like radarr_get_rootfolder or radarr_list_rootfolder.

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