[EN] Remove a zoning rule override (reverts to engine defaults) — admin only. / 用途地域規制ルールの上書きを削除し、エンジン既定値に戻す。管理者のみ。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zoning | Yes | 用途地域名 | |
| profile | No | 法域 (既定 Japan) | |
| admin_token | Yes | 管理者トークン (必須) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the effect (reverts to defaults) and access restriction (admin only), but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what the response looks like, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 a single sentence that covers purpose, effect, and access control. Bilingual format adds utility without bloat. Every element is necessary and efficiently presented.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return value or success indicators. It does not. For a mutation (delete) tool, the agent needs to know what to expect after invocation. The description is incomplete in this regard.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with Japanese descriptions. The English description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 description explicitly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'zoning rule override', and specifies that it reverts to engine defaults. It also notes 'admin only', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like upsert_zoning_rule.
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 indicates admin-only use and reverting to defaults, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool upsert_zoning_rule. It implies that this tool is for removing overrides while upsert is for creating or updating, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.
Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.
29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.
Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.