delete_visitDelete one of your logged lounge visits. Identify it by lounge_slug; pass visited_at to pick a specific date if you have multiple visits to the same lounge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visited_at | No | Visit date (YYYY-MM-DD) — needed only to disambiguate multiple visits | |
| lounge_slug | Yes | Lounge slug of the visit to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate danger. It adds useful context by specifying that the destruction applies to the agent's own logged visit ('your') and by naming the resource being deleted, complementing the annotations without contradicting them.
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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs the disambiguation logic compactly and clearly.
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 two-parameter delete tool with a complete schema and strong annotations, the description provides enough to call it correctly: the target resource, the identifying key, and the optional date disambiguation. It does not describe the return value or failure behavior, but the simple action and annotations cover most of that gap.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about visited_at disambiguating multiple visits, adding no genuinely new parameter semantics beyond a readable summary.
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 an unambiguous verb ('Delete') applied to a specific resource ('one of your logged lounge visits') and explains the identification fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like update_visit, mark_lounge_visited, and get_my_visits.
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 says what the tool does but never addresses when to choose it over sibling tools such as update_visit or delete_review. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, leaving the selection entirely to inference from the tool name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the wishlist/visit/review lifecycles are clearly separated. However, get_my_passport, get_my_profile, and get_my_visits overlap somewhat in stats and visit history, which could cause minor confusion.
All tool names use snake_case and a verb-first structure, which is fairly consistent. The main deviation is mixing get_, list_, search_, find_, and discover_ for read operations, plus discover_more_flight_tools sits outside the domain naming pattern.
21 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a server covering lounge discovery, wishlists, visits, reviews, and user profiles. Each tool has a clear place and there is no obvious bloat.
The tool set provides full CRUD coverage for wishlists, visits, and reviews, plus rich lounge discovery by airport, network, access method, and search. A minor gap is that lounge details only show review counts, not the actual reviews from other users.