dex_delete_reminder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the deletion is permanent, and for recurring reminders it stops all future occurrences. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens to associated data, leaving some gaps for a destructive operation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core action, the second addresses an important edge case. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the permanence and recurring reminder behavior well, but lacks information about permissions, error handling, and what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more completeness would be beneficial.

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. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'reminderId' parameter or provide any details about its format or where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a reminder'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by addressing the special case of recurring reminders. It goes beyond a simple tautology by explaining the effect on recurring occurrences.

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 context about when to use this tool (to delete reminders, including handling recurring ones), but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. However, the sibling list includes 'dex_update_reminder' as a potential alternative for modifying rather than deleting.

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