nexo_reminder_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'soft-delete,' which implies reversibility but does not explain the exact behavioral traits (e.g., what happens to the reminder, whether it can be restored, any side effects on related data). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise, using only two sentences. The structure is clear: the first states the action, the second provides a critical usage instruction. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose. Could potentially be slightly more compact, but it is effective.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return value or outcome of the operation. Given that this is a deletion tool, behavior like success indication, confirmation, or error conditions should be described. The context is incomplete without annotations or output schema coverage.

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 100%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The schema already describes 'id' and 'read_token' clearly. The description only reiterates the importance of read_token through the usage guideline. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 states 'Soft-delete a reminder' which clearly indicates the verb ('soft-delete') and the resource ('reminder'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling reminder tools (e.g., nexo_reminder_get, nexo_reminder_create) by naming the specific action. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'soft-delete' entails, which could be somewhat ambiguous.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'call nexo_reminder_get first and pass its READ_TOKEN.' This gives specific guidance on how to use the tool correctly. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the instruction is helpful enough to guide typical usage.

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