Remove notification

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

While annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the side effect of indices shifting and the fact that the remaining list is returned. This helps the agent predict the outcome and re-target correctly, which is not covered by annotations alone.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. The schema handles the rest, so no additional verbosity is needed.

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 simple removal tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. The schema provides detailed parameter semantics, and annotations cover the destructive nature. The description adds the critical index-shifting behavior, making it complete in context. Minor gaps like prerequisites are not necessary given the simplicity.

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 input schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-described (index includes behavior details, taskId/taskName are clear). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter semantics fully.

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 states a specific verb ('remove'), a specific resource ('notification (reminder)'), and the method ('by index'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_notification or list_notifications, and from remove_item which targets items rather than notifications.

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 implies the correct usage via 'by index', and the schema mentions using list_notifications to see indices. It also warns that indices shift and that the remaining list is returned for re-targeting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the context strongly implies the workflow.

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