opentable_remove_favorite

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation (remove), but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the operation fails if the restaurant is not a favorite, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Transparency is minimal.

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 a single concise sentence of 11 words, front-loading the action and resource with no extraneous information. It is efficient and fits within the MCP context.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic functional understanding. However, it lacks guidance on usage and behavioral details that would make it fully complete for agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter. While the parameter name 'restaurant_id' is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or context (e.g., where to find the ID, or acceptable formats). The tool description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('a restaurant from the user's Saved Restaurants list'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like opentable_add_favorite and opentable_list_favorites.

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 implies the tool is used when a restaurant should be removed from favorites, but it does not provide explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., the restaurant must already be a favorite) or when to avoid using it. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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