Delete Reminders

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description reinforces this with 'permanently' (signalling no undo) and tells the agent where valid ids come from, but says nothing about permission requirements or behavior on invalid/stale ids.

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?

Two tight sentences with the destructive scope and the disambiguation front-loaded, followed by a minimal Args block. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 what the tool does, the permanence of the effect, and where ids come from. It stops short of covering failure modes (nonexistent ids, partial batch failure), which is a minor gap.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that ids are 'index numbers or ID prefixes from show_reminders output', telling the agent how to source valid values rather than just their type.

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 and resource ('Delete one or more Apple Reminders') and immediately distinguishes the operation from its nearest sibling by noting it removes a reminder 'entirely (not just complete it)'. An agent can separate this from complete_reminders 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when the user wants to remove a reminder entirely'), which implicitly contrasts with the completion path. It does not name complete_reminders or edit_reminder explicitly as alternatives, so routing is clear but not fully enumerated.

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