setlist_unmark_attended

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

Despite annotations already indicating destructive and idempotent behavior, the description adds substantial value: dry-run preview without confirm, actual removal with confirm, verification by re-reading, no-op behavior when not attended, and attribution requirements for returned URLs. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, reversal relationship, authentication, idempotence, dry-run mechanics, verification, and URL attribution. It is front-loaded with the primary action, though the long final sentence could be split for readability.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers authentication, destructive behavior, idempotence, dry-run execution, confirmation semantics, verification, and how to attribute results. An agent has all the information needed to invoke this tool safely and correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm behavior and setlistId purpose but does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific action ('Remove a show'), a specific resource ('YOUR attended list on setlist.fm'), and the identifying input ('by setlist ID'). It also explicitly frames the operation as the reverse of setlist_mark_attended, which differentiates it from its sibling tool.

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 clear usage context: it requires an authenticated session, is idempotent, and behaves differently with or without confirm:true. It names setlist_mark_attended as the reversed operation, giving the agent a direct alternative reference, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases.

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