reading_delete_book

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true. Description adds value by specifying that the book folder and related data are archived under 'data/trash', and that confirmation is required. This goes beyond the annotation alone.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. Action and scope are front-loaded. All information is relevant and concise.

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?

Covers main behavioral outcome (archival) and a key requirement (confirm), but lacks mention of irreversibility, permissions, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive for a destructive tool with no output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'confirm' (requires true) but provides no explanation for 'bookId' (e.g., how to obtain it, format). Incomplete for both parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Delete a book' with specific verb and resource, and details what gets archived (folder, progress, annotations, etc.). Distinguishes from sibling tools like reading_list_books or reading_mark_read.

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?

Description mentions 'Requires confirm: true' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., soft delete, mark as read). It implies deletion but lacks contextual usage boundaries.

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