Remove podcast feed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by disclosing what is actually destroyed in each branch: a source-linked feed is archived and disabled, while a legacy unlinked feed is deleted along with its tracked episode rows. It also clarifies the blast radius ('already published corpora are not removed') and the return signal ('whether a row was affected').

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?

Four sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and each subsequent sentence adding a distinct piece of decision-relevant information (alternative, branch behavior, return value). Nothing repeats the title or 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the branch-specific effects, the retention boundary, and the return value, which is everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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 100% and the single feed_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where the ID comes from. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or validation semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Stop monitoring a registered podcast feed,' which unambiguously separates it from add_podcast_feed, poll_podcast_feed, and list_podcast_feeds. It also distinguishes the removal semantics from the sibling alternative set_source_consent.

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?

It states when to use it ('Use after list_podcast_feeds identifies the feed') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('use set_source_consent to disable capture while retaining detection'). Both the when and the when-not are explicit.

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