nexo_reminder_delete

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states 'soft-delete' implying reversibility but does not explain soft-delete behavior (e.g., can be restored, hidden from lists). No contradictions; description is adequate but lacks depth on side effects or auth requirements beyond the token.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus an imperative prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two params and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It omits return value or confirmation, but that is acceptable given simplicity. Context is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with clear descriptions. The description repeats that read_token comes from nexo_reminder_get, adding no new info beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters well.

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 'Soft-delete a reminder.' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like nexo_reminder_complete or nexo_reminder_restore by the prerequisite of calling nexo_reminder_get first.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call nexo_reminder_get first and pass its read_token, providing a clear usage prerequisite. Could further differentiate from alternatives like nexo_reminder_complete or nexo_reminder_update, but the given guidance is helpful.

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