delete_saved_therapist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion cascades to notes, drafts and contacts, and it does not touch the upstream therapie.de record. It still omits irreversibility and whether a confirmation or auth scope is required.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive cascade front-loaded ahead of the scope boundary. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the destructive cascade plus local-only scope cover the main agent concerns for a deletion tool. The gap is the unexplained required identifier and the absence of any irreversibility or confirmation guidance.

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% for the single parameter profile_id, so the schema carries no meaning at all. The description does not mention profile_id, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from get_therapist or the shortlist), leaving the only required input entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (local saved therapist) plus the cascading scope (notes, drafts, contacts), and explicitly bounds it against the remote service. An agent can distinguish it from save_therapist and update_saved_therapist without opening any schema.

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 scope sentence ('Does not affect therapie.de') implicitly tells the agent this is a local-only operation, which helps route between local and remote actions. However, it never states when to prefer update_saved_therapist over deletion, nor any prerequisite or confirmation step before an irreversible action.

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