delete_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It identifies the tool as destructive ('Delete') but lacks details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or whether deletion is irrevocable. The existing output schema partially mitigates missing return info, but behavioral traits remain under-specified.

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?

Two short sentences right at the start: one for purpose, one for parameter guidance. No fluff, every sentence adds value, making it highly scannable.

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?

Output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return value clarification is less needed. However, for a deletion tool, the description omits success/failure behavior and conflict handling. With low complexity, the minimal info is borderline acceptable but incomplete for robust agent use.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'control_index' (1-based, use get_controls to list) but only labels 'network_id' as 'Session id' – somewhat vague. This provides partial guidance but not full clarity for both parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Delete a simple control by its 1-based index') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'add_control' implicitly by being the inverse operation.

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?

Hints at proper usage by referencing 'get_controls' to list controls before deleting, providing valuable context. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with other deletion tools, leaving gaps in guidance.

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