Recurring Remove Recurring Stream

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data' adds little concrete behavioral detail. It does not state whether the stream definition, future occurrences, or related data are destroyed, nor whether the action is reversible. The word 'may' also leaves uncertainty about side effects, which is weak for a destructive operation.

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 short and front-loaded: 'Remove recurring stream' immediately states the action. The second sentence is concise, though vague, and the overall definition is not padded with irrelevant details.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and no guidance on return shape, side effects, or what data is affected, the description is incomplete. It leaves an agent unsure about whether deletion is permanent, what happens to related occurrences, or what a successful removal returns. The lack of this context is material for a write/destructive operation.

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 schema provides useful descriptions for the optional fields and output_mode parameters, covering the more complex semantics. However, the required recurring_id parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain how to identify the recurring stream beyond a self-evident name. This is an adequate but incomplete parameter story for an agent.

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?

Description clearly names the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'recurring stream,' making the core operation recognizable among CRUD siblings like recurring_create/update/get/list. The second sentence, however, is overly broad: 'may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data' does not specify what exactly is removed. It does not fully disambiguate from other reource removal tools, but the resource name is specific enough.

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 provided about when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when a user wants to permanently delete a recurring stream versus updating or deactivating it. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are mentioned. Context must be inferred solely from the tool name.

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