mnemosyne_agenda_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: removal is permanent with no archive, repeating appointments are removed as a whole series, and the tool names each removed appointment by title and start time in its response. The headless-daemon requirement is also disclosed, making side effects visible before invocation.

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 dense but every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact. The core instruction to read first and pass ids is front-loaded, and the remaining caveats are ordered by practical importance with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the input source, matching rules, deletion permanence, recurrence behavior, runtime prerequisites, and what the response will report. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 schema already documents the ids parameter well, but the description adds important semantic constraints: ids must come from mnemosyne_agenda_list, matching is strictly by id rather than by title or date, and there is a concrete warning against natural-language date matching. This adds real meaning beyond the schema's type and count.

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 states a clear, specific verb and resource: REMOVE appointments from the human's calendar. It also distinguishes this tool from alternatives by explicitly saying it never matches by title or date, which makes the purpose unmistakable even among agenda siblings.

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 tells the agent to read appointments with mnemosyne_agenda_list first and pass the returned ids, and warns against title- or date-based matching with a concrete failure example. It also addresses repeating appointments and the dev-install versus npm environment differences, which leaves no ambiguity about how and when to use it.

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