Delete availability

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

The description adds the behavioral consequence that dates become plannable again, which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not contradict any annotations; the idempotentHint is not mentioned but that is acceptable since the annotation already covers it.

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 the action and effect front-loaded in the first sentence and a short, focused follow-up about the ID source. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition of schema details.

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 straightforward delete operation, the description covers the purpose, the source of the required parameter, and the resulting state. Since there is no output schema, no return-value details are needed, and the annotations handle the safety profile.

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 provides essential guidance for the 'availability_id' parameter, directing the agent to tp_get_availability or the create response, which compensates for the parameter's missing description in the schema. The 'athlete' parameter is already adequately described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' and resource 'availability entry', making its purpose unmistakable. It also states the outcome (dates become plannable again) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tp_get_availability and tp_create_availability.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to remove an availability entry) and gives a practical hint for obtaining the required ID. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, though no relevant alternatives exist among the sibling tools.

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