shelly_scene_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the confirm gate, which the schema alone does not enforce (confirm defaults to false and is not in the required list). It still doesn't say whether deletion is permanent or how failures/unknown names behave.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the invocation prerequisite. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 tool whose annotations carry destructiveHint and whose output schema covers return values, the description supplies the missing invocation constraint and the target resource. Only the consequences of deletion (e.g., scene removal being permanent or affecting running schedules) are left unstated.

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% with 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so for the critical parameter by stating confirm:true is required, correcting the schema's default-false, non-required representation; 'name' is left implicit but is self-evident from 'a named scene'.

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 named scene'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling scene operations like shelly_scene_create, shelly_scene_get and shelly_scene_run. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 one usage-relevant fact given is the prerequisite that confirm:true is required, which tells the agent how to invoke it. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, nor any pointer to alternatives for managing scenes.

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