REP Helper

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the activity is hidden from queries (explaining the immediate effect) and recoverable within 72 hours via a specific web app (explaining the reversibility window). This clarifies the 'soft' nature of the deletion.

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 sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action ('Soft-delete an activity') followed by behavioral implications. Every word earns its place.

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 operation, the description adequately covers the soft-delete semantics and recovery mechanism. Minor gap: does not specify return value on success, though this is often implicit for delete operations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('The activity ID to delete'), the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 uses specific verb 'Soft-delete' with resource 'activity', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_activity or get_activity. The soft-delete semantics differentiate it from potential hard-delete alternatives.

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 usage constraints through the 72-hour recovery window and REP Helper web app mention, but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance comparing it to update_activity or distinguishing from permanent deletion scenarios.

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