delete_friend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the major side effect: the friend is also removed from any shared projects, which is essential for understanding the destructive impact. It does not mention permanence or undoing, but the disclosed side effect is significant and goes beyond what the tool name alone would convey.

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 a single sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the side effect in a concise parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. This is an ideal level of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action and the critical side effect. It could optionally mention that the friendship must exist or that the operation is irreversible, but for a straightforward delete, the current description gives an agent enough context to call 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'friendshipId' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional contextual meaning about the parameter, such as where to obtain a valid friendship ID or the format expectation. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't conflict or add value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Remove a friend') and adds a key side effect (removes from shared projects), making the operation clear. It distinguishes this tool from listing friends, sending requests, or responding to requests, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings. The added side-effect detail further disambiguates the tool's impact.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you want to remove an existing friend. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as distinguishing between removing a friend and declining/unsharing a pending request. No alternatives are named, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among friend-related operations.

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