delete_reading_goal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-readOnly, but the description adds that the action is irreversible and, importantly, that books and reading progress are unaffected — a side-effect scope that annotations cannot express. It also discloses the return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the alternative, and the collateral-effect clarification plus return value. Front-loaded with the verb and permanence caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the return value ({deleted: true, id}), and it covers irreversibility, alternatives, and unaffected resources. Nothing needed to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the id parameter is already documented, but the description adds that the id comes from get_reading_goal, which helps the agent source the value correctly. Minor value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (reading goal) plus scope (by id) and permanence. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_reading_goal and delete_user_book.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use set_reading_goal(id, archived=true) to hide instead of delete, and names get_reading_goal as the source of the id. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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