delete_symbol

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'delete by address' – e.g., whether deletion is permanent, if it affects other references, or if revision checks apply. The annotation covers the destructive nature, and the description adds minimal value, but there's no contradiction.

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 of only six words, which is highly concise. It gets to the point quickly and front-loads the core action, but it omits necessary details due to its brevity. There is no filler, but the extreme brevity borders on under-specification.

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 there are 5 parameters, no parameter documentation, and the tool is destructive, this description is insufficient. It lacks information about required parameters, potential effects on related data, or how the expected_revision might influence the operation. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it to add operational context.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The description mentions 'by address' but does not clarify that 'address' is required, nor does it explain the roles of 'scope', 'program_name', 'expected_revision', or 'project_id'. Since there are 5 parameters with no documentation, the description fails to compensate.

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 the resource (symbol-table entry) identified by address. It is concise and unambiguous, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upsert_symbol' or 'delete_section' which are clearly different resources. However, the verb-resource pairing is specific enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, potential side effects, or context where deletion might be inappropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are presented.

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