delete_agenda

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a side effect (deleting associated tasks) and the return type (dictionary with status and message), but omits important destructive-operation details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or error handling. This is partial transparency.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter description is slightly redundant with the parameter name. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main action, the side effect on tasks, and the return type. However, it lacks essential context for a destructive operation (permanence, error scenarios) and does not clarify its relationship to sibling tools like create_agenda or update_agenda. The presence of an output schema lessens the need to describe return structure, but key contextual gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, it only restates the parameter name ('The ID of the agenda to delete') with no added value like format, constraints, or examples. The compensation is minimal and barely exceeds the schema itself.

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 an agenda') and the specific resource ('an agenda and its associated tasks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_memory. The verb and object are explicit and unambiguous.

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, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It only describes the mechanism of deletion without contextualizing the choice of this tool over other agenda-related operations.

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