radarr_delete_movie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical trait: the operation is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and deleteFiles is permanent. It stops short of noting required permissions, whether Radarr unmonitors vs fully removes, or the response shape.

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 tight sentences: purpose, the optional destructive flag, then the irreversibility warning last. Nothing is wasted and the highest-risk information is unmissable.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main risk adequately. Adding a note on required permissions or what happens to existing Radarr entries would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description restates the deleteFiles flag as optional and permanent, which mirrors the schema text rather than adding new meaning, and it never mentions addImportExclusion.

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 ('Delete a movie from Radarr'), which cleanly separates it from the file-level sibling radarr_delete_movie_file. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the resource noun does the disambiguation work.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as radarr_delete_movie_file, radarr_edit_movie, or radarr_remove_from_queue, and no prerequisites stated. The optional flags are described but that is parameter detail, not usage routing.

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