deleteHighlight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a highlight' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify if the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated bookmarks), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 'Delete a highlight' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'highlight' is in this context, how to obtain the ID, the deletion's permanence, or what to expect upon success. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Highlight ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID from getHighlights) or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Delete a highlight' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a highlight'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like deleteBookmark, deleteCollection, or deleteTag, nor does it specify what type of highlight is being deleted (e.g., text annotation, saved content). This makes it vague in the context of sibling tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a highlight ID from getHighlights), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations), or comparisons to siblings like batchDeleteBookmarks or deleteCollection. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.

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