Delete watch progress

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable transparency by stating that the previous state is snapshotted before the write and that revert is possible via nuvio_undo. This goes beyond annotation and is critical for a destructive operation. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides the undo context. There is no redundant wording, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with three parameters, the description covers the key purpose, the undo mechanism, and hints at the preview behavior (via confirm). However, it doesn't explain the role of profile_id, which is a gap given that it's undocumented in the schema as well. Additionally, the output is not described, but there is no output schema. Since the core usage is clear and the undo context is provided, it is nearly complete but missing a small detail.

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 67%, which covers keys and confirm but not profile_id. The description says 'by progress key' which aligns with the 'keys' parameter, and mentions the confirm behavior (preview vs. destructive) which is helpful. However, profile_id is undocumented in both schema and description; the description could clarify that profile_id selects the profile context. Since coverage is high, baseline 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 (delete) and the resource (continue-watching entries identified by progress key), distinguishing it from related tools like 'delete_watch_history' and 'set_watch_progress'. The phrasing is specific and 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 this is for deleting continue-watching entries by key, and mentions a revert option via nuvio_undo, which helps in deciding when to use it. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delete_watch_history, but the key-based deletion is clear enough. A note about when to use confirm versus preview would improve it.

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