shelly_kvs_delete

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that a confirm:true gate is enforced and that the action is audit-logged. It stops short of saying whether deletion is reversible or what scope of data is removed.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: action, precondition, side effect. The core action is front-loaded with zero preamble.

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 mutation, the description covers the safety gate and audit trail, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is that the two required identifier parameters are undocumented, which slightly weakens the definition.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that 'confirm' must be true (beyond the schema's default:false) but leaves 'device' and 'key' unexplained — no format, no naming convention, no indication of what a device identifier looks like.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a KVS key'), which cleanly separates it from shelly_kvs_get, shelly_kvs_set, and shelly_kvs_list. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the operation is 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 states a precondition ('Requires confirm:true') but gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g. when to delete a key versus mutating it with shelly_kvs_set or going through shelly_rpc_write. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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