Remove a kid from the parent's account. Irreversible — deletes the kid record and any kid-linked enrollments/reviews remain but become orphaned (kid_id set null).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kid_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: irreversible deletion, and side effects on enrollments/reviews becoming orphaned. This exceeds the minimal requirement for 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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. No superfluous information.
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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the effect of the action (deletion and orphaned records). However, it does not mention what the response or confirmation will be, which is a minor 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?
The single parameter kid_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description offers no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not explain how to obtain a valid kid_id or any constraints.
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 tool removes a kid from the parent's account with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like parent_add_kid and parent_update_kid.
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 warns that the action is irreversible but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage.
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.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
