changedetection_delete_history

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: every snapshot is deleted, the watch itself survives, and confirm omission triggers a dry run. It does not explicitly discuss irreversibility, but the destructiveHint annotation already covers that safety concern.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the endpoint, the key scoping detail, and the dry-run behavior. No filler.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what remains, and how to preview safely. It could say more about the response or confirm behavior edge cases, but annotations and schema already carry the safety profile.

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%, including detailed confirm semantics such as rejecting false and the string 'true'. The description's 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' restates what the schema already says, so it meets the baseline without adding further parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete every snapshot for a watch') and explicitly distinguishes itself from deleting the watch itself ('The watch remains'). The endpoint reference reinforces the exact 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?

Gives clear operational guidance: 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' tells the agent how to preview before executing. The 'watch remains' phrase implicitly distinguishes it from changedetection_delete_watch, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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