Readwise MCP HTTP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes a tag and returns a confirmation, which implies a destructive mutation. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., on tagged highlights), or error handling for invalid IDs. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second describes the return value. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted text.

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 complexity (destructive mutation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and return, but misses key context like prerequisites, side effects, and error cases, leaving gaps for safe usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'tag_id' as the parameter, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what a tag ID is (e.g., from 'list_tags'), its format, or validation rules. This provides basic but incomplete semantic context.

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 ('a tag by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_highlight' or 'list_tags', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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., the tag must exist), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'list_tags' (to check IDs) or 'create_tag' (for creation).

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