Delete a saved search

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable context with 'No network requests,' disclosing that the operation is purely local and has no remote side effects, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 brief two-clause sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by a single high-value behavioral note. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

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 with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and an important behavioral nuance. It omits optional details like error behavior or return value, but those are largely covered by the output schema and structured annotations.

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 fully describes the 'name' parameter with a pattern and an example. The description adds only the phrase 'by name,' which reinforces the parameter but does not meaningfully supplement the schema's already complete documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('a saved search'), and a scoping detail ('by name'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like save_search and list_saved_searches, making its intent unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention related operations like saving or listing saved searches. 'No network requests' hints at a local operation, but the description does not clarify the broader context or prerequisites.

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