delete_reminder

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation it discloses concrete behavioral traits: the default is a non-mutating preview pointer, parent deletion cascades to subtasks and is refused without an explicit flag, EventKit and Full Disk Access are required because the subtask check reads the Reminders store, and a just-indented subtask may not yet be visible. This is exactly the context an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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 critical dry_run default is front-loaded in caps, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct operational fact. It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place, with only the clipped 'id' from reminders' phrasing reading as slightly terse.

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 three-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers safety default, refusal conditions, cascade semantics, permission requirements, and a consistency caveat. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists.

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%, but the description documents all three parameters: id's source ('from reminders'), dry_run's default and effect, and with_subtasks' role in bypassing the parent refusal. Nothing about parameter meaning is left to inference.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a reminder') scoped by identifier, which cleanly separates it from siblings such as update_reminder and complete_reminder. The following sentences define exactly what deletion means in the parent/subtask case.

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?

It states clearly when the tool previews versus deletes (dry_run defaults true, pass false to actually delete) and when a parent deletion is permitted (with_subtasks=true). It never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like complete_reminder or update_reminder, but the operational guidance for the tool itself is unambiguous.

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