Delete Podcast Episode

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

The description adds the behavioral nuance of 'Permanently delete,' which emphasizes irreversibility and goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by concretizing the consequence. It also suggests a non-destructive alternative, providing useful context. However, it omits other details like permission requirements or return behavior, but the annotation already covers the destructive nature, so this is well-handled.

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—two short sentences with no filler. Each sentence carries essential value: the first defines the action and input method, the second provides a key usage alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 one-parameter delete tool with clear annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It covers the action, the input method, the consequences (permanent), and provides an alternative, all within a compact statement. No additional context is necessary given the tool's simplicity and the available structured metadata.

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 already fully describes the sole parameter ('Episode id or slug') with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'by id or slug' merely reflects the schema, adding no new semantic details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as no additional meaning is contributed.

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 specific action ('delete') and the resource ('podcast episode'), and clarifies the input method ('by id or slug'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool update_episode by explicitly framing the tool as permanent deletion versus hiding an episode, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for permanent deletion, and states a clear alternative ('Prefer update_episode with published: false if you only want to hide it'). This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the sibling update_episode, fulfilling the dimension perfectly.

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