resy_remove_notify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the full subscription spec is resolved internally via resy_list_notify and that no other input is required, which changes how the agent invokes it. Auth requirements and invalid-id behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and its identifying parameter lead. The trailing 'no other input needed' slightly restates the preceding clause about internal lookup, a minor redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its input resolution, but says nothing about the outcome (confirmation, failure on an unknown notify_id), reversibility, or auth. Enough to call it, not enough to predict its result.

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 carry the load for the single parameter. It names notify_id and, usefully, implies its provenance (the id comes from resy_list_notify), but adds no format or constraint detail (the schema's positive-integer constraint is undocumented in prose). Adequate but thin for a 0%-coverage parameter.

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 and resource — 'Cancel a Priority Notify subscription by notify_id' — which is far more than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from resy_add_notify and resy_list_notify. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the generic resy_cancel sibling, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for cancelling an existing notify subscription, and the note that the spec is fetched from resy_list_notify hints at workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no clarification of how this differs from resy_cancel.

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