delete_user_book_read

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: exactly what is destroyed ('only that read is removed' while the book, status, rating, and review survive), that it is irreversible, and the return payload. That scoping detail is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by consequences, return shape, and the sibling alternative. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, blast radius, reversibility, return value, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% with one documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance value by specifying the id is a user_book_read id obtained from get_user_book, which the schema's terse 'The user_book_read ID to delete' does not establish.

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 precise verb and resource ('Permanently delete one read entry'), defines the granularity (a single start/finish/progress record), and names the sibling it is not ('To remove the whole book use delete_user_book'). An agent can distinguish this from delete_user_book without opening either schema.

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 this for a single read record, use delete_user_book to remove the whole book. It also tells where the id comes from ('from get_user_book'), giving the agent a prerequisite source rather than leaving it to infer.

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