delete_unit

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional context about consequences, such as whether deletion is permanent, if related records are affected, or if there is any recovery option. The openWorldHint suggests possible side effects, but the description does not address them.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one short sentence with no filler. It is a complete verb+resource statement, but it lacks any additional structure or explanation that could be considered valuable for such a simple tool.

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 simplicity, the presence of annotations, and a fully described parameter, the description provides the basic function. However, it omits behavioral details like permanence and side effects, which are especially relevant for a destructive operation. The description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 fully describes the only parameter, unit_id, with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 'Delete a unit' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (unit), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like get_unit and update_unit by the verb. However, it does not elaborate on what a unit is in this domain, which would help an agent fully understand the scope.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or edge cases. For a destructive action, it would be helpful to say something like 'Use when a unit is no longer needed' or 'Permanently removes the unit and associated data.'

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