remove_tracking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') which implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether removal is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., deleting associated data), or provides confirmation feedback. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., reversibility, error handling), usage context, and what happens post-removal. For a tool that modifies state, this leaves too many unknowns for the agent to operate confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'podcastName' fully documented in the schema as 'Name of the podcast to remove'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a podcast from the tracking list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_tracking' and 'list_tracking' by specifying removal rather than addition or listing. However, it doesn't specify what 'tracking list' refers to in context, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for removing tracked podcasts, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the podcast must already be tracked), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_tracking' for checking current tracking. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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