timeline_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the probe/recompute behavior, the INVALID_PARAMS failure with details.dependents, the dependents_checked=false case, and the meaning of problems_after when force=true. It also documents the returned object, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then gives only operationally relevant behavior: probe semantics, failure mode, force behavior, and return shape. The example is short and useful, and no sentence is redundant for a destructive timeline operation.

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 two-parameter deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: item scope, force behavior, failure and dependency details, and the exact response structure. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for force by explaining that without it a suppression probe runs and with force=true new problems are reported. It also clarifies that item can refer to a group with contents, adding context beyond the schema's ref syntax.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Delete a timeline item," and immediately names the item categories including groups. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling timeline inspection, suppression, rename, and edit tools without needing to open the 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?

The description explains the two operating modes: without force it probes by suppressing first, and with force=true it proceeds despite new problems. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives such as timeline_set_suppressed or state prerequisites, but the mode guidance is clear.

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