create_users_hidden_progress_watched_remove

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, authentication requirements, or reversibility. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint line and the payload-discovery note are useful, though the 'Args: body: Request payload' section is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 tool has an open-world body and no schema coverage, so the instruction to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint is helpful. Still, an agent must perform additional discovery before calling the tool, and the description does not clarify what 'hidden progress items' are or how they should be identified in the body.

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 provides only an open 'body' object with no property descriptions, and coverage is 0%. The description does add one useful instruction: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields. However, it does not name any fields or specify the body shape, so the compensation is minimal.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Remove hidden progress items.' This is a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling remove-style tools, but the 'hidden progress items' scope is distinct enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_users_hidden_by_section_remove or delete_shows_by_id_progress_watched_reset. It only says to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for payload fields, which is preparation guidance rather than usage selection guidance.

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