mdl_reviews_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger is covered structurally. The description adds valuable non-annotation context (host-configured MyDramaList authentication requirement), but says nothing about irreversibility, what else is lost (votes/comments on the review), or return behavior.

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?

Three short clauses, each earning its place, with the warning about data mutation front-loaded. No filler, though the fragmentary style borders on being under-specified rather than concise.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers auth and caution but omits the consequence of deletion and the identity meaning of review_id. Adequate given annotations carry the safety profile, but not complete.

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 single parameter review_id is completely undocumented in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema only supplies type/pattern constraints, not meaning (e.g., whether it is the review's own ID or a title-scoped identifier), and the description does not compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Reviews: delete"), making it distinguishable from siblings like mdl_reviews_get, mdl_reviews_submit, and mdl_reviews_edit. It is terse but unambiguous about what the tool does.

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?

"use only for an explicit user request" provides a genuine when-to-use constraint. However, it names no alternative tools (e.g., mdl_reviews_edit for corrections) and gives no guidance on the condition under which deletion is appropriate versus editing.

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