delete_recommendations_shows_by_id

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

Annotations already expose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the useful nuance that this is a 'hide' rather than a hard delete, but it does not explain what hiding entails, such as reversibility or visibility effects. This is partial, not contradictory, transparency.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the HTTP path and Args section add necessary invocation details without any fluff or redundant restatement.

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 single-parameter destructive operation, the description is mostly adequate: annotations cover idempotence and destructiveness, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the lack of sibling differentiation and the underspecified 'hide' behavior leave some ambiguity about the exact effect and appropriate usage 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?

The schema gives only 'id' with type string and no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description's Args section compensates minimally by explaining that id is 'the id/slug of the resource,' which clarifies accepted identifier form. However, it does not specify what resource context means precisely or how to obtain the id/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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Hide a show recommendation.' This makes the operation identifiable and aligns with the tool name and HTTP DELETE path. It does not explicitly differentiate from delete_recommendations_movies_by_id, but the 'show' qualifier effectively scopes it to the correct sibling domain.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_recommendations_movies_by_id or list_recommendations_shows. No preconditions, exclusions, or context are provided, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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