delete_reminder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'permanently' indicates irreversible deletion, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether deletion affects associated data, confirmation requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal 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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and includes the critical qualifier 'permanently' to indicate severity. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'permanently' entails operationally, what happens to the deleted data, whether deletion can be undone, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. Given the tool's destructive nature, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 reminder') with the qualifier 'permanently', which distinguishes it from temporary removal operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'uncomplete_reminder' or 'complete_reminder' that might also affect reminder status.

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. With multiple sibling tools that manipulate reminders (complete_reminder, uncomplete_reminder, update_reminder), there's no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus status changes or modifications.

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