delete_magic_dash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It simply says 'Delete' without disclosing whether deletion is permanent, what happens if no matching item exists, or whether special permissions are needed. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and includes the essential identifying parameters, making it easy to parse.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks usage guidance relative to the sibling delete_magic_dash_by_id, and does not disclose behavioral side effects. The only strength is purpose 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 description explicitly names title and company_name as the identifiers for deletion, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail about how these values are used (e.g., exact match, uniqueness) would be expected.

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 target (Magic Dash Item) with the specific identifying keys (title and company_name). This distinguishes it from the sibling delete_magic_dash_by_id, which presumably uses an ID.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have a title and company_name to identify the item, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with delete_magic_dash_by_id or state when not to use it. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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