resy_remove_notify

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

The annotations already mark the tool as mutating but non-destructive, so the description is not required to restate that. It adds one useful behavioral detail: the tool internally looks up the full spec from resy_list_notify, which explains why only notify_id is needed. It does not discuss idempotency or error behavior, but the cancel action is clear and does not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the active purpose, and no filler. The internal-lookup detail is the only extra information and it earns its place.

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 cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the exact required input, and why that input is sufficient. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state failure behavior for a nonexistent notify_id, but that is not essential to selecting and invoking 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?

The input schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must carry the meaning. It identifies notify_id as the subscription identifier and explicitly states that no other input is needed, which is the critical semantic missing from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Cancel'), a concrete resource ('Priority Notify subscription'), and the key identifier ('notify_id'). This makes the tool's function obvious and separates it from sibling list/add tools even without naming 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 the tool is for canceling an existing subscription rather than listing or adding one, and it notes that no other input is needed. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over resy_add_notify or how to obtain a valid notify_id, so routing is left mostly to inference.

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