resy_remove_favorite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile (non-destructive mutation) is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about idempotency, what happens if the venue is not currently a favorite, or auth requirements.

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, verb and resource front-loaded, with the identifying parameter stated at the end. Nothing extraneous and nothing that could be trimmed.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive favorites mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. It is missing the one piece an agent would want: behavior when the venue is not in the favorites list (error vs. no-op).

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, so the description carries the burden: it names 'venue_id' but adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the property name. Naming the identifier mildly clarifies intent but does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a venue from the user's favorites') and a scope qualifier ('by venue_id'), which is enough to separate it from resy_add_favorite and resy_remove_notify. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no alternatives named. The only hint is the implied inverse of resy_add_favorite, which the agent must infer from the name rather than the description.

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