delete_reminderPermanently delete a reminder. This cannot be undone.
Confirm with the user first, quoting the reminder's title and schedule. If they may
want it later, use pause_reminder instead.
Args:
reminder_id: Reminder to delete (from list_reminders).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reminder_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the irreversibility ('cannot be undone') and the mandatory user-confirmation step, which is not expressible in annotations. It does not mention permission/auth requirements or error behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.
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?
Front-loads the destructive action and its irreversibility, then the confirmation rule, then the alternative. All sentences earn their place. The 'Args:' block slightly duplicates a single obvious parameter, which is minor padding.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema available, everything an agent needs is present: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, that confirmation is required, and the safer alternative. No missing decision-relevant information.
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 0% and the schema only carries a bare string with no description, so the description must compensate. It does: it identifies reminder_id as the target and names list_reminders as the source for obtaining it, which is meaningful provenance beyond the type declaration. It stops short of format details.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a reminder') and immediately differentiates from the sibling pause_reminder, which is the closest overlap in the tool list. An agent can select this without opening either schema.
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?
Explicit when-to-use (user wants it gone), when-not (they may want it later -> pause_reminder), and a required confirmation workflow with the exact content to quote (title and schedule). This is routing plus procedural guidance, not just context.
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.