shelly_kvs_delete

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

The destructiveHint annotation already marks the tool as destructive. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: the need for confirm:true and that the operation is audit-logged. These help the agent understand side effects without 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 very short with two sentences and no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and constraint. Could be slightly longer to cover parameters, but the minimalism is acceptable for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the core action, required confirmation, and audit logging. It does not explain the return value or error cases, but the output schema may cover that. Overall adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 the description must compensate. It only explains the confirm parameter (must be true), leaving key and device undescribed. While these may be self-explanatory, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's field 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 'Delete a KVS key', specifying the verb (delete) and the resource (KVS key). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shelly_kvs_get, shelly_kvs_set, and shelly_kvs_list.

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 explicitly notes the requirement for confirm:true, which guides the agent on how to invoke the tool. It also mentions audit-logged, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the core guidance is clear.

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