remove_activity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the removal is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what happens if the id does not exist. The only extra behavior is the pointer to get_itinerary for finding ids, which is more about parameter retrieval than tool behavior.

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 two concise sentences: the first clearly states the action, and the second adds a useful pointer. No superfluous words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the description covering the core action and id provenance, the description is largely complete. It omits mention of permanence or error handling, but these are not critical given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning to the activity_id parameter by explaining that ids are shown in square brackets by get_itinerary. This directly tells the agent where to obtain a valid value, compensating for the missing schema description.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('activity') and an explicit method ('by its id'). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating removal versus get_itinerary (listing) and add_activity (creation).

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 workflow context by telling the agent that ids are found in square brackets via get_itinerary. This implies the prerequisite action and when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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