undefine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the outcome ('revert to raw bytes') but does not state whether this is destructive (data loss), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens to references to the undefined item. The description is too brief for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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, which is concise. However, it sacrifices critical details for brevity, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 the tool has 2 parameters (one undocumented), no annotations, and an output schema that could describe return values, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'address' parameter (required) or the 'size' parameter (optional, default 1). The description only mentions 'items at an address', leaving the agent to infer that 'size' controls how many items to undefine, but with no clarity on units or behavior.

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 uses the verb 'Undefine (delete)' and specifies the resource as 'items at an address', with a clear outcome: 'reverting them to raw bytes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'define_function' or 'make_code', though it could be more explicit about which types of items this applies to (e.g., functions, data, structs).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'undefine_function' or 'make_data'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., address must contain a defined item) or situations where this might fail or be inappropriate.

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