Delete a reminder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific effect — the reminder is removed and reminderAt is cleared while the tracked job survives — which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation. It does not mention irreversibility or auth, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action in one sentence and uses labeled Input/Output blocks that scan quickly. Reasonably tight, though the bolded section scaffolding is slightly heavier than the single-parameter tool needs.

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?

With annotations covering destructiveness and an output schema documenting the returned tracked job, the description supplies the one thing not in structured fields — what specifically gets cleared. Complete enough for a one-parameter destructive tool.

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% and the description's tracked_job_id text is essentially identical to the schema's, so it adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting; the disambiguation from trackable.id/job.id is helpful but already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a reminder from a tracked job'), scoping it to a job rather than reminders generally. An agent can distinguish it from reminder_set and reminder_list without opening either schema.

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 only implied by the sibling set (reminder_set/reminder_list) and the destructive verb; there is no explicit statement of when to use delete versus clearing via tracker_update, nor any prerequisite or caution. Minimum viable routing guidance.

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