delete_podcasts_by_id_episode_by_episode_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by explaining the 'hard' parameter (hard delete if set to 1) and by suggesting to inspect the schema for expected body fields, which goes beyond annotation data. No contradiction with 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 description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, the endpoint, then a bulleted Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes to usage. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (delete with optional body and hard flag), the description covers all parameters and hints at preparation steps. Annotations handle destructive/idempotent semantics, and an output schema exists for return values. It lacks an explicit mention of the soft-delete alternative, but that is minor given the available context.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains id and episode_id as path parameters, body as a request payload requiring prior schema consultation, and hard as a flag for hard deletion. This provides meaningful semantic context that the schema lacks.

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 action ('Remove a podcast episode') and provides the exact endpoint. While it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools, the name and endpoint make it specific to podcast episodes, distinguishing it from generic delete operations like delete_items_by_id. A 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation.

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 includes a practical hint to read the GET or /schema endpoint before supplying a body, which guides parameter preparation. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over other delete operations, nor any exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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