NEXO Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanent' deletion, which is useful, but doesn't cover other critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if deletion is reversible, what the response looks like, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and parameter semantics but lacks important behavioral context like permissions, irreversibility warnings beyond 'permanently', or error conditions. The presence of an output schema prevents a lower score.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'id' by specifying it's a 'Reminder ID' with an example format ('e.g., R87'). Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates by clarifying what the ID represents and its expected format.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a reminder permanently'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nexo_reminder_complete' or 'nexo_reminder_update', which also operate on reminders but with different effects.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing reminder ID), when deletion is appropriate versus completion or update, or what happens after deletion. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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