delete_genres_by_genre

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description merely restates the deletion and the HTTP route. It adds no consequences (e.g., whether deleting a genre cascades or is reversible) beyond the caution to read GET/schema before sending a body, so it contributes little beyond the 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?

The text is compact and front-loaded: one-line purpose, route, then args. The route repeats some of the purpose line, and the arg lines are terse, but there is no filler and the useful GET/schema instruction is included.

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 simple two-parameter delete with an output schema and destructive/idempotent annotations, the essentials are present. Still, it omits how to obtain a valid genre value and does not state whether the body is optional, leaving the agent dependent on the schema and external endpoint discovery.

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 gives 'genre' as a string and 'body' as an open object, and the description labels genre as a path parameter and body as a request payload. Its main added value is instructing the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover body fields, which partly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, but it does not describe actual genre value semantics or mark body as optional.

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 opens with a concrete action and resource ('Delete api genres') and includes the exact route 'DELETE /api/genres/{genre}', so the agent knows it removes a genre. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling delete tools like delete_tags_by_tag, though it doesn't explicitly state whether the path value is a genre name or ID.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over delete_tags_by_tag, delete_authors_by_id, or other delete endpoints. The only procedural note is 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first', which helps with body construction but does not address tool selection.

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