opentable_remove_favorite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the mutation and repeat-call profile. The description adds nothing beyond the name's implication: it does not state what happens if the restaurant is not saved, whether auth is required, or how to confirm success.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted 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 simple one-parameter removal with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description states the essential purpose. However, it omits the error/edge behavior when the item is not favorited and any success signal, which leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is undocumented, so the description carries the burden. It only implies that 'a restaurant' is identified, without explaining that restaurant_id comes from search/get_restaurant results or giving any format detail. The self-explanatory parameter name keeps this from being worse than a bare minimum.

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 gives a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('restaurant from the user's Saved Restaurants list'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (opentable_add_favorite), but the verb alone is distinctive enough to route an agent correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g., the restaurant must already be in the list). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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