opentable_remove_favorite

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't contradict them. The description adds value by clarifying that the action targets the user's saved list and affects only that restaurant. It doesn't need to repeat the annotations, but it could have mentioned side effects (e.g., irreversible removal), which is a minor gap given the mutation nature.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the tool does, and the only missing piece is explicit guidance on how to determine the restaurant_id, which could be inferred from the sibling tools. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the parameter. The description doesn't explicitly explain restaurant_id, but the tool name and description imply that restaurant_id identifies the restaurant to remove. However, it doesn't provide details like how to obtain the ID (e.g., from list_favorites), which would be more helpful. With only one parameter, the context is fairly clear, but the description could be more explicit.

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 target (a restaurant from the Saved Restaurants list). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like opentable_add_favorite and opentable_list_favorites, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage context by mentioning the Saved Restaurants list, which hints that this tool is appropriate when a restaurant is already a favorite and needs to be removed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool relative to siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., the restaurant must already be saved).

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