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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavior: built-in parts are not permanently deleted but tombstoned and can be restored by re-adding. This is valuable since no annotations are present. However, it does not clarify whether non-built-in parts are hard-deleted, leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys both the primary action and an important edge case. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a key special case. It could be more complete by explicitly stating the behavior for custom parts, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

With only one parameter 'id' and 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning or format. Although it is likely the part ID, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making this a clear gap.

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 'delete a part' with a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical about tombstone for built-in parts adds important scope clarification, distinguishing it from other part-related tools. It directly addresses the action and its variant for built-in parts.

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?

While the tool is obviously the removal counterpart to parts_add/update, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. The usage is implied by the name and siblings, but the description does not provide explicit context.

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