delete_settings_sonarr_by_sonarr_id

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

The description explicitly says 'Delete Sonarr instance,' which aligns with the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations without contradicting them. However, it adds little beyond the annotations: it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether related integrations are affected, or what the success/failure response contains. The endpoint line is useful but not behavioral context.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action, the endpoint, and the argument definition. Every line earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 delete operation with one required parameter, the description is nearly complete. The destructive and idempotent behavior is covered by annotations, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be described. Only a sentence about consequences or when deletion is appropriate 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The line 'sonarr_id: Sonarr instance ID' adds semantic meaning by identifying what the parameter refers to, beyond the schema title 'Sonarr Id.' It does not explain how to discover or validate a Sonarr instance ID, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Delete Sonarr instance.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_settings_sonarr_by_sonarr_id, get_service_sonarr_by_sonarr_id, and list_settings_sonarr. The endpoint pattern reinforces the specific scope of the operation.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using update_settings_sonarr_by_sonarr_id to modify an existing Sonarr configuration. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or conditions that should hold before deleting. The intended use is implied by the name and one-line description, but not explicitly stated.

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