delete_notifications_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is externally known. The description adds little beyond the bare 'Delete a notification' action, but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the simple operation, no serious behavioral disclosure gap remains.

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?

Three short sections: purpose, endpoint, args. No filler or repeated annotation content, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds information.

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?

The definition covers the operation, the endpoint, and parameter preparation strategy, while annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior and an output schema covers return values. It could note that body is optional, but the schema already marks it not required with a null default, so an agent can call correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies id is a path parameter and explains body is a request payload whose expected fields can be discovered via GET or /schema. This gives an agent actionable direction for both parameters, even though the exact body fields are not enumerated.

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?

Opens with 'Delete a notification' — a concrete verb and resource. The HTTP endpoint and args make the target unambiguous, and the name distinguishes it from other delete_* siblings. No ambiguity about what object is affected.

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 when-to-use or alternative comparison against sibling delete operations or patch_notifications_by_id. The instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a prerequisite for constructing the body, not guidance about when to choose this tool. Selection must be inferred from the name and operation alone.

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