Readwise MCP HTTP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a highlight and returns a confirmation, which covers the basic operation. However, it lacks critical details like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or side effects (e.g., impact on tagged highlights). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and return confirmation, and the presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, for a deletion tool, it should ideally include more behavioral warnings or prerequisites to be fully complete.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying it's an ID used to identify the highlight to delete. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only defines 'highlight_id' as an integer with no description), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't detail ID format or sourcing (e.g., from 'list_highlights').

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 resource ('a highlight by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_tag' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations like 'update_highlight' that might also modify highlights.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing highlight ID), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'update_highlight' or 'delete_tag'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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