delete_agenda_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully communicate behavioral traits, but it only states the obvious deletion operation. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, if it is reversible, whether related entries are affected, or any other operational consequences beyond the verb 'remove'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words or filler. It conveys the core purpose in six words and appropriately sized for a tool with one simple parameter.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, this description is too thin. It does not answer the essential questions of what the id refers to, how to interpret the result, or what happens after the item is removed; the agent is left with only the basic 'delete this resource' understanding.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must compensate for the vague 'id' integer parameter. Although the sentence implies the id refers to an agenda item, it never explicitly explains that the id is the identifier of the item to be removed, nor does it clarify any validation or format requirements.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('an item from the weekly agenda'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools like add_agenda_item, update_agenda_item, and get_agenda through its verb and target.

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 offers no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, such as update_agenda_item for modifying an item or rollover_agenda for archiving the week. There are no explicit contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice from the tool name alone.

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