tp_delete_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove an availability entry.' only states the action but does not disclose consequences like irreversibility, side effects on related data, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple delete tool, though the lack of supplementary information means it is under-specified rather than efficient.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of the required availability_id, the optional athlete parameter, whether deletion is permanent, or any related side effects. The context of sibling tools (create/get availability) also suggests that more detail is needed to avoid misuse.

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%, with only the 'athlete' parameter described. The 'availability_id' parameter has no schema description and the tool description does not mention it at all. The description adds zero semantic value to either parameter, leaving the agent to guess how to identify the entry to delete.

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 'Remove an availability entry.' clearly states a specific verb (remove) and resource (availability entry), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_create_availability and tp_get_availability. It is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not mention whether deletion is permanent, if special permissions are required, or any context for appropriate use. This leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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