resy_remove_favorite

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation but does not state whether removal is idempotent, what happens if the venue_id is not in favorites, or whether any confirmation or error is returned. No output schema exists to clarify the response.

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, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. It uses the critical identifying parameter (venue_id) and clearly conveys the operation.

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?

The definition is minimal. Given zero annotations, no output schema, and a mutation operation, important context is missing: idempotency, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. An agent could call it correctly in the basic case but would be unprepared for realistic failure scenarios.

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%, but the description explicitly names venue_id as the parameter, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type. However, it does not explain the format or provenance of venue_id (e.g., how to obtain it), so the description only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove'), the target resource ('a venue from the user's favorites'), and the identifying parameter (venue_id). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like resy_add_favorite and resy_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resy_add_favorite or resy_list_favorites. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the venue must already be in favorites) or edge cases.

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