delete_extra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add the useful constraint that extra registrations cannot be modified and must be deleted/recreated. However, it does not explicitly state whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects billing, or what permissions are required beyond the api_key parameter.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence earns its place. The Args section is clearly separated and provides direct parameter guidance without unnecessary prose.

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?

Given an output schema is present and the tool has only two simple parameters, the description covers the necessary invocation details well: purpose, the no-modify rule, where to get the ID, and api_key fallback. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly warning that deletion is irreversible/has billing implications, but the 'delete and recreate' phrasing largely conveys this.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully. registration_id is explained as the ID from list_registered_extras, which gives the agent a reliable source, and api_key's fallback to MESS_API_KEY is valuable operational detail not present in the schema.

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 opens with 'Cancel an extra item booking,' a specific verb and resource. It clearly separates this from meal-related tools and from register_extra, while the tool name delete_extra aligns with the described behavior.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Extra registrations cannot be modified — delete and recreate if needed.' This gives a clear rule of use, though it does not name the exact alternative tool for recreation, only implies it.

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