Remove a note from a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does much of it well: it discloses case-insensitive matching, that a single match causes deletion, that zero matches yields an error, and that multiple matches return a preview list rather than deleting. It omits reversibility (is the deletion undoable?) and any permission or auth expectations for a destructive operation, which keeps it from 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?

The opening sentence front-loads verb, resource and matching mechanism, then the branching outcomes are laid out in a compact decision sequence. The final sentence on the 'day' filter is slightly redundant with the schema description, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the important edge cases (no match, ambiguous matches, disambiguation strategy) that an agent needs before invoking it. The remaining gaps are the consequences of deletion — reversibility, confirmation, and any post-delete return shape — which matter for a mutation tool with no annotation safety net.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the day format variants and the case-insensitive substring semantics. The description restates the text-matching and day-scoping behaviour and only marginally adds value by framing 'day' as a narrowing filter rather than introducing new syntax or constraints.

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 names a specific verb (remove) and resource (a note block within a Wanderlog trip) and goes further by stating the selection mechanism — substring matching on note text. That verb+resource+mechanism combination makes it clearly distinguishable from wanderlog_edit_note and wanderlog_remove_place without opening any 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?

It gives actionable usage guidance for the tricky case: if multiple notes match, you get previews back and should retry with a more specific substring, and the optional 'day' filter narrows the search scope. What it doesn't do is explicitly route the agent between this tool and its near neighbours (edit_note, remove_place, delete_section), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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