wrike_delete_custom_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on workflows/tasks that use the status. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentence and is immediately clear. It contains no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum conciseness. However, the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail.

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 and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate for identifying the operation, but it lacks contextual information about consequences of deletion. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should include additional context such as irreversibility or related constraints. Overall, it is a bare-bones description.

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?

The single parameter customStatusId is fully documented in the schema with a description and required flag, so high schema coverage gives a baseline of 3. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics, but none are needed beyond the schema for this simple ID-only parameter.

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 states exactly what the tool does: delete a custom status, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like create/update/list custom statuses. The only weakness is that it adds no information beyond the tool name.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The destructive intent is implied by 'delete', but the description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or cases where deletion is inappropriate. This is adequate but minimal.

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