Delete activity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the blast radius — "deletes it for everyone" — which annotations cannot express and which materially changes the agent's risk calculus. It also confirms a JSON confirmation is returned; it stops short of saying the deletion is irreversible or permission-gated.

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 one-line purpose with the side-effect warning is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns block is compact with no filler. The docstring scaffolding is slightly heavier than needed for a single parameter, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive tool with an output schema (so return format is largely covered), the description supplies purpose, blast radius, and ID sourcing — enough to invoke it correctly. Gaps like reversibility or ownership restrictions are minor but real for a delete operation affecting other users.

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% on the single parameter, so the description must carry the burden, and it partially does by defining activity_id as the activity to remove and pointing at list_activities as the source. It does not specify the ID format or validation behavior, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Remove") against a disambiguated resource: it explicitly defines an "activity" as "one comment or like," which the tool name alone would not convey. It does not need sibling differentiation since no other delete_* tool targets comments/likes, but it also doesn't state that it deletes a single item only versus batches.

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 parenthetical "(from list_activities)" gives a sourcing hint that implies the workflow: obtain the ID from list_activities, then delete. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., whether you can only delete your own activity, or what error occurs if you lack permission), leaving prerequisites to inference.

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