Remove song from queue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that: no statement of what happens if the id is not in the queue, whether removal requires elevated permissions, or whether it is immediate or deferred.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the supporting lookup hint. Nothing is redundant.

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 queue mutation with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: annotations carry the safety signal and the schema carries the parameters. It leaves gaps around failure modes and permissions, which matters more for a destructive operation than for a read.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 24-char hex format for 'song'. The description adds only provenance for the 'song' id (get it from songrequests_queue); it says nothing extra about the optional 'channel' override. Baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Remove a song from the media request queue.' An agent can distinguish it from songrequests_add or songrequests_next on the verb alone. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from the other queue-mutating siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives useful workflow context by pointing to songrequests_queue as the source of valid song ids, implicitly telling the agent to call that tool first. It still says nothing about when to remove versus skip or reorder, or any precondition such as needing a channel owner or moderator context.

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