nexo_followup_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'soft-delete' implying reversibility but does not elaborate on what that entails (e.g., marking as deleted but recoverable). It also correctly notes the prerequisite of the read token, but lacks details on side effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose and a critical usage instruction. Every word adds value, and the important note is highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'.

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 simple delete operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential. However, it could improve by explicitly linking to the 'nexo_followup_restore' sibling to clarify reversibility, which is currently only implied by 'soft-delete'.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for 'id' and 'read_token' provided in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose is clearly stated: 'Soft-delete a followup.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from other followup-related siblings (create, get, update, complete, note, restore) by specifying soft-delete.

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 explicit guidance: 'call `nexo_followup_get` first and pass its READ_TOKEN.' This tells when and how to use the tool. However, it does not list exclusions or explicitly mention alternative tools like restore for recovery.

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