delete_recommendations_movies_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a 'hide' semantic and the exact DELETE route, but does not explain reversibility, side effects, or auth/error behavior. Given the rich annotations, this is tolerable but the description itself contributes little behavioral detail.

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 four short lines with the key phrase front-loaded before the endpoint and args. Every line serves a purpose with no filler. This is an excellent lightweight tool definition.

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 one-parameter DELETE endpoint with a required id, an output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent/readOnly behavior, the description covers the essential call shape. It stops short of explaining side effects or routing to alternatives, but those are partially covered by annotations and the simple resource type. Overall the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the documentation burden for the only parameter. It adds that id is 'The id/slug of the resource,' which clarifies accepted identifier forms beyond the schema's bare string type. For a single simple parameter this is sufficient, even though it could be more explicit about how to obtain the slug.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hide') and resource ('movie recommendation'), and the word 'movie' distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_recommendations_shows_by_id. The endpoint line reinforces the exact resource path. There is no ambiguity about what operation is being invoked.

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 does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives, such as delete_recommendations_shows_by_id or list_recommendations_movies. The intended context is only implied by the verb and resource name. There is no when-not-to-use or exclusion information.

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