Delete media progress

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing what gets destroyed (position, finished state, dates) and explaining the two-step confirmation mechanism. This adds significant behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action, then explains scope, input clarification, and process in a logical order.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and two-step process but lacks details about the response format of the first call (e.g., what the confirmation token looks like) and potential error conditions. With no output schema, this gap reduces completeness for a destructive, two-step tool.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that the media_progress_id comes from the 'id' field of get_media_progress (not a library item id) and explains the confirm_token's role in the two-step process, which is not fully apparent from the schema alone.

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 tool deletes a progress record and removes listening history (position, finished state, dates). It explicitly distinguishes the input (media progress id from get_media_progress) from a library item id, differentiating it from siblings like get_media_progress and set_media_progress.

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 provides clear guidance on the input parameter (media progress id, not library item id) and explains the two-step process (first call returns confirmation token, second call performs deletion). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for updating progress use set_media_progress), though the sibling context implies this.

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