delete-highlight

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the delete action; it does not mention permanence, failure behavior, or side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but there is zero additional transparency credit.

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 redundant words. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately compact for such a simple operation. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter), the presence of annotations (destructive hint), and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details such as the success response (e.g., empty object) or any note about irreversibility beyond what the annotation implies. It is complete enough for basic use but lacks some contextual richness.

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 a full description for highlightId ('The id of the highlight to delete.'), yielding 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'by id' merely mirrors the schema and adds no new semantic meaning. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'highlight' with the qualifier 'by id', making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools (delete-bookmark, delete-list, delete-tag) by naming the specific resource. However, it lacks any additional scope such as 'permanently' or 'irreversibly', which keeps it from a top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-highlight or get-highlight. It simply states the action without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since sibling tools exist for related operations, some usage direction would be expected.

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