remove list entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes meaningfully beyond them: it names exactly what is destroyed (score, progress, notes), confirms the media record survives, and documents the mandatory preview/confirmation handshake and the fact that omitted fields are preserved. That is the extra context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope before the procedural detail. Every sentence carries information, though the "ordinary requested single-entry changes" clause adds a slightly confusing distinction rather than clarity.

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 6-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers impact, approval flow and preview mechanics well. The one residual gap is that it never resolves whether a single-entry delete counts as "ordinary" (executed directly) or "destructive" (preview required), leaving the agent to infer when confirmation is mandatory.

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 already 83%, so the bar is a baseline 3; the description nonetheless explains the dry_run preview behavior and the confirmed/confirmation_id retry protocol, which the schema only labels tersely. It does not clarify the title-vs-media_id selection path, but the schema covers that inline.

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 ("Permanently delete the connected owner list entry") and immediately scopes what is not affected ("the anime/manga itself is not deleted"). This clearly separates it from update_list_entry, update_anime_score and the other mutation siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow: always require explicit human approval of the exact preview, use dry_run:true to preview, and re-issue with confirmation_id plus confirmed:true after approval. The only weakness is ambiguity between "executes ordinary requested single-entry changes directly" and "destructive changes return a preview" — a single-entry removal arguably falls in both buckets, and no sibling alternative is named for bulk removals.

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