delete_rung

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true)Skip destructive nature. The description adds that it 'repair CX-Programmer rung indexes/counts,' which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation)Skip that the tool performs additional maintenance beyond the deletion. However, it does not disclose other side effects (e.g., impact on references, need to save) or failure modes, so it adds only partial transparency.

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 that states the action and a key side effect without fluff. It is appropriately short and front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 operation with 4 required parameters and an optional expected_revision, the description lacks important context about consequences (e.g., whether changes are reversible, impact on program logic, or how to handle revision mismatches). While an output schema exists, the description does not convey enough operational context for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings, but it only implies rung_index via 'rung.' It does not clarify the roles of project_id, program_name, section_name, or expected_revision (likely for concurrency control). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic property names.

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 one rung' and adds a specific detail about repairing indexes/counts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_rung or replace_rung. It is specific about the resource (rung) and the operation (delete), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like insert_rung, replace_rung, and compile_structured_rung, there is no mention of scenarios where deletion is appropriate or preferred, nor any prerequisites or conditions.

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