delete_reminder

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, yet the description adds real value beyond them: irreversibility, the non-obvious side effect that unread notifications are marked read, a creator-only authorization rule, and a minimum server version. That is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent needs before committing an irreversible write.

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, front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, then the secondary side effect and constraints. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers risk, side effects, permissions, and version compatibility, with annotations covering the safety profile. Only gap is how to source the reminder identifier and a nod to the preview-then-confirm workflow that the schema describes.

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 coverage is 50%: the confirm preview/approval parameter is well documented in the schema, but reminder_id has no schema description and the description adds nothing about it (e.g., obtain via list_reminders). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the trickier parameter is covered elsewhere, but the description does not compensate for the gap.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (reminder) with a meaningful scope qualifier — 'pending' — and an explicit consequence ('so it never fires; this cannot be undone'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from update_reminder or create_work_package_reminder without opening schemas.

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?

States two hard preconditions: only the creator may call it, and it requires OpenProject 16.1+, which lets an agent rule itself out. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over update_reminder (e.g., to suppress rather than remove) or how to find a reminder_id, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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