delete_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns of the destructive side effect ('deletes it for everyone') and states the return format (JSON confirming the deletion), covering the most important behavioral aspects for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and side effect, followed by concise args and returns sections. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant elaboration.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, no enums, and an output schema, so the description only needs to cover purpose, parameter source, and side effects—all of which are present. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It adds crucial context by specifying that activity_id is 'The activity to remove (from list_activities)', grounding the opaque string ID. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient compensation.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and a clearly scoped resource ('one comment or like', i.e., an activity). This distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like delete_assets, delete_album, and delete_tag, and it further grounds the resource by referencing list_activities.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to remove a single comment or like, with the activity_id sourced from list_activities. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the resource scoping makes the intended use unambiguous.

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