Remove a manual favorite (local)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false) by disclosing the local-only guarantee ('NEVER writes to Untappd'), the exact failure return ('removed:false' when nothing existed, consistent with idempotentHint), and the manual-vs-derived distinction that determines whether removal is even possible. No contradiction with 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the local-only guarantee, then the edge cases (removed:false, derived favorites, username default). Every clause carries decision-relevant information; nothing is filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it operates on, what it does not touch (upstream Untappd), the return behavior on no-op, and how derived favorites differ. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret the 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 100%, so all three parameters (id, kind enum, username) are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description's only added param guidance, 'Omit username for your own account,' essentially restates the schema's own wording, so it adds little beyond structured fields.

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 (Remove), a specific resource (a MANUAL favorite of kind beer/brewery/venue), and its scope (local cache only). It immediately distinguishes the tool from untappd_favorite_add and untappd_favorites_list, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: a DERIVED favorite cannot be removed and must be adjusted via untappd_favorites_list thresholds instead, naming the sibling to use. It also states the default-account convention (omit username for your own account), leaving nothing to inference.

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