plu_delete_availability

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

The description adds the behavioral note 'Ask user confirmation,' which is valuable since no annotations exist. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether the deletion is irreversible, any side effects, or success/failure responses.

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 just two short phrases, front-loading the core action. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits critical context such as where availability IDs come from, what happens post-deletion, and how to handle errors. More detail is needed for a deletion operation.

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 description provides no explanation for the single required parameter 'availabilityId.' With 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot infer the meaning, format, or how to obtain availability IDs, leaving the parameter semantics completely unclear.

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 availability') and the resource, which distinguishes it from delete_unavailability based on resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like plu_delete_conversation or plu_delete_message.

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 instruction 'Ask user confirmation' provides important usage guidance, implying the agent should obtain user consent before proceeding. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete an availability versus unavailability.

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