delete_user_book_read

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive, irreversible nature. However, it lacks details such as whether the deletion is permanent, if it cascades to other data, or any authorization requirements. For a destructive tool, slightly more transparency would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise at two sentences and zero wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and warning about irreversibility. It is ideally sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It outlines what the tool does and its irreversible nature. However, it lacks clarity on what constitutes a 'reading date entry', potential error cases, or usage context (e.g., only applicable to the user's own entries). Slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond stating the ID is used. The schema already documents the id field. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not provide additional semantic context like where to obtain the ID.

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 action 'Delete' and the resource 'a reading date entry' along with the required identifier 'by its ID'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like delete_journal_entry or delete_user_book by specifying the unique resource type.

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 a clear warning that the action cannot be undone, implying one should only use it when sure. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating instead of deleting) or provide any prerequisites or context for safe usage.

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