sonarr_delete_system_backup

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description merely repeats this with 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' without adding new behavioral context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds no value beyond them.

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 two short sentences, very concise and front-loaded. However, the first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the second repeats the annotation's destructiveness. Still, it is efficiently sized and not verbose.

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?

Given a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but incomplete: it doesn't clarify what the 'id' parameter is, nor does it provide usage context or warnings beyond the annotation. The output schema is present so return values are not needed, but the missing param semantics and usage guidance leave significant gaps.

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 zero description coverage for the 'id' parameter, and the description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., the backup ID). The tool name implies it, but the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer the meaning.

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 states 'Delete system backups' which clearly identifies the verb (delete) and resource (system backups), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_system_backup and restore_backup. However, it essentially restates the tool name without adding additional scope details, so it is clear but not enhanced.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to restore a backup instead of deleting it, or whether to list backups first. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., knowing the backup ID) or context for safe use.

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