Ludus FastMCP

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 tool deletes a template and returns a result, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required beyond 'admin only' for user_id, error conditions (e.g., if template is in use), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a template') and uses a structured format (Args/Returns) for clarity. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Returns' section is vague ('Deletion result') and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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's destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't detailed here), the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual elements: safety warnings, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., template must not be deployed), and how it differs from sibling deletion tools. For a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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 adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'template_id' identifies what to delete, and 'user_id' is optional and admin-restricted. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., ID structure), dependencies between parameters, or what 'admin only' entails (e.g., specific roles). This provides some value but leaves gaps.

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 template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_range' or 'delete_range_by_user', which would require mentioning what makes template deletion distinct from range deletion.

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 provides minimal guidance—only mentioning that 'user_id' is 'admin only' for one parameter. It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_range'), what prerequisites exist, or any constraints on template deletion (e.g., only if not in use). This leaves significant gaps in usage context.

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