sonarr_delete_import_exclusion

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the immediate effect (removal from the exclusion list) and the consequence (re-addability). It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but for a simple delete operation, this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and outcome.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action and the resulting state change, and the parameter source is specified in the schema. There are no missing critical details for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description ('Exclusion ID (from sonarr_get_import_exclusions)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove a series from the Sonarr import exclusion list') and the outcome ('allowing it to be re-added'). This distinguishes it from other delete tools in the sibling list, such as sonarr_delete_series or sonarr_delete_from_blocklist.

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 implies the usage context: use this tool when you need to remove an import exclusion so a series can be re-added. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the simple scope and clear purpose make the usage obvious, especially with the companion sonarr_get_import_exclusions tool referenced in the param schema.

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