remove_from_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important side effects: wiping the Simkl rating and re-enabling recommendation inclusion. It does not mention permanence or authorization requirements, but the key destructive consequence is clearly stated.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action stated first and necessary caveats following. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition or 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?

The description covers the core behavior and important side effects, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the required parameters are not documented enough for a fully reliable call, leaving a notable gap in self-sufficiency.

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 description only implies that the items are 'titles,' giving a small hint toward the items parameter. It provides no guidance on the required 'type' value or the object shape for each item, and with 0% schema description coverage and no enums, the agent is left to guess.

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 specific verb and resource: remove titles from watch history. The added side-effect details further clarify what the tool uniquely does, distinguishing it from read-only or status-setting sibling tools.

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 clear practical context: removing items stops them from being excluded from recommendations, which is usually the point of using this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident.

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