trmnl_remove_room_booking_company_logo

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the disclosed side effect: removing the standard logo also removes the color logo. That is a genuine behavioral fact an agent cannot get from annotations, plus the underlying DELETE endpoint. It does not discuss behavior when no logo is set, but the core risk is covered.

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 action and its cascade side effect are front-loaded, and each sentence adds something. 'Changes remote state or starts work' is boilerplate that adds little, keeping it from a 5.

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, idempotent delete with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the side effect, the endpoint, and the authorization scope. Only edge behavior (removing a logo that doesn't exist, response shape) is unaddressed, which is minor given idempotentHint.

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 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, and it partly does by exposing the URL template /api/apps/room_booking/{installation_id}/settings/company_logo, which clarifies what installation_id identifies. The 'profile' parameter is left entirely to the schema, so the gap is only partially filled.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('company logo') scoped to a room booking installation, and the cascade note (the color logo goes with it) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling trmnl_remove_room_booking_color_company_logo without naming it. An agent can identify the operation, though an explicit sibling call-out would make it a 5.

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 cascade sentence implies the choice between this tool and the color-logo-only remover, but the agent has to infer it. The only explicit usage constraint is 'Run only within the user-authorized scope', which is a generic safety caveat rather than when-to-use guidance.

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