remove_from_wantlist

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further and discloses the concrete safety gate: the call is destructive and requires dry_run=false AND confirm=true. That tells the agent the defaults (dry_run defaults to true) would make the call a no-op, which is exactly the kind of behavior structured fields don't convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the destructive precondition. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical execution requirements. It could add what a dry_run=true call returns or what happens if the release isn't on the wantlist, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It meaningfully explains the semantics of dry_run and confirm (both must be false/true respectively), which is the non-obvious part; only release_id (an integer identifier) is left undocumented, and its meaning is inferable from the tool name.

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 precise verb (Remove) and resource (a release from the wantlist), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling add_to_wantlist. An agent knows exactly what the call changes without opening the schema.

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 makes the use case clear (undoing a wantlist entry) and states the exact conditions required to actually execute the removal. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, but the counterpart add_to_wantlist is unambiguous from the name.

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