Delete watch history

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'The previous state is snapshotted before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.' This transparently discloses the safety mechanism and recovery path, going beyond the annotation defaults.

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?

Two concise sentences. The description leads with the operation, lists the key identifiers, and includes a reversibility note with a pointer to the undo tool. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

As a destructive operation, the description covers what is deleted and how to undo it, which is critical context. However, it does not explain the preview behavior when 'confirm' is false, nor does it mention any return value or side effects (e.g., whether season/episode deletions cascade). The overall context is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 33%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameters. The tool description references content id, season, and episode, but does not explain the 'confirm' flag, keys array structure, or profile_id parameter. The schema carries most of the semantic burden with little help from the description.

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 action: 'Delete watch-history entries by content id (and season/episode).' This clearly identifies the resource and operation. It could further differentiate itself from nuvio_delete_watch_progress, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool deletes watch-history entries, and the schema implies a preview/commit workflow via the 'confirm' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus nuvio_delete_watch_progress or nuvio_mark_watched. Usage context is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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