delete_tool_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top — no mention of permanence, permissions, or what happens to dependent agents (that detail lives only in the schema's 'force' parameter).

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?

At two words the text is technically short but is under-specified rather than concise — it omits information an agent needs rather than trimming redundancy. There is no structure or front-loading to evaluate.

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 destructive delete operation, the description supplies no context about consequences, dependency removal, or irreversibility. Annotations and the schema's 'force' description carry most of the load, but the description itself leaves an agent with nothing beyond the tool name.

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 100% and the 'force' parameter is well documented in the schema itself, including its cascade behavior. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Tool' is a bare restatement of the tool name and title 'Delete Tool Route'. It conveys a verb and resource but adds no scope, target, or differentiation from the many other delete_* siblings such as delete_agent_route or delete_project.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no warning about the cascading effects of deletion. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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