Clear hydration day

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the tool requires explicit user intent and does not affect intake entries. This goes beyond just repeating annotation info.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and condition; the second provides immediate context about scope and alternatives. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the destructive, conditional nature of the tool and the presence of closely related siblings, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what, when (with condition), what not, and how to achieve a related action. No missing elements for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is low (33%): only explicit_user_intent has a description. The description mentions 'after explicit user intent' which relates to that parameter, but it does not explain the date format or the response_format parameter. The date pattern in the schema is self-explanatory, but the tool description should have clarified the role of the boolean more directly.

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 verb (Delete), the resource (local hydration entries), and the condition (for a date after explicit user intent). It also distinguishes from sibling tool nourish_clear_day by noting what it does not touch (intake).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (after explicit user intent) and provides clear alternatives: pair with nourish_clear_day or use nourish_clear_day with include_hydration:true for both hydration and intake. This leaves no ambiguity.

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