mess_delete_monthly_registration

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already indicate this is destructive (destructiveHint: true) and idempotent (idempotentHint: true), the description adds specific information about the 403 error condition for closed windows and clarifies that individual meal registrations are preserved. This provides practical usage guidance that annotations alone don't convey.

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 efficient and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, adds important behavioral context in parentheses, states a critical error condition, then lists parameters and return values in a clean format. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words.

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 (annotations show destructiveHint: true), the description provides excellent completeness. It explains what gets deleted versus preserved, mentions a key error condition, and documents both parameters and return values. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail, making this description appropriately complete for its context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It mentions the parameters (auth_key/session, month, year) but provides minimal semantic context. The schema already documents these parameters thoroughly with descriptions, ranges, and requirements, so the description adds only basic parameter awareness without significant additional value.

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 specific action ('Delete a monthly mess registration') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying that individual meal registrations are kept. This differentiates it from tools like 'mess_cancel_registration' or 'mess_delete_extra_registration' which handle different types of deletions.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for deleting monthly registrations while keeping individual meals) and mentions a specific error condition (403 if window closed). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different deletion scenarios.

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