radarr_delete_movie_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries a heavy burden for behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as 'destructive' and explains the confirm parameter's behavior (dry-run vs. actual delete). However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or the response format, though the output schema exists. Overall, it provides sufficient transparency for a simple file deletion operation.

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 four sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately distinguishes from the sibling tool. The structure is clear and each sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and differentiation from siblings. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. The description is complete for an AI agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It explains that confirm=True triggers actual deletion, while omit or False does a dry-run. It also implies movie_id is the target movie. This adds significant semantic value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the action ('Delete the movie's file'), the resource ('the movie's file'), and distinguishes it from radarr_delete_movie by noting that the movie remains tracked. The verb 'delete' and resource 'movie file' are specific, and the contrast with the sibling tool is explicit.

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 explicitly contrasts with radarr_delete_movie, stating that this tool only removes the file while keeping the movie monitored for re-download/upgrade. It also explains the confirm parameter's role: actual deletion vs. dry-run preview. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and how to use it correctly.

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