delete_country

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already declare. Annotations clearly set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive and repeatable. The description simply restates the action without adding context like permanent deletion, authorization requirements, or side effects.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is efficient for a simple delete operation, though it is arguably too sparse to provide meaningful value. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 one required parameter and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any context about consequences (e.g., fail if referenced) or confirmation steps, which would be helpful in real-world usage. The presence of complete schema and annotations lifts it from a 2, but it still lacks proactive clarity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: country_id is described as 'the id of the country'. The description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage; the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 'Delete a country' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (country), matching the tool name. It is unambiguous, though it does not provide additional context to distinguish from other delete_* tools beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_country or search_countries. It does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., country not in use) or situations where deletion is appropriate. This is a minimal placeholder with no usage direction.

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