delete_icon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement, but omits critical behavioral details for a destructive operation: whether deletion is permanent, what exactly gets deleted (file, path entry), side effects on dependent tools, or error conditions. This is minimal disclosure.

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 with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and appends the key requirement, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a destructive operation with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too sparse to guide correct invocation; it lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and expected outcomes. More detail is needed, especially given the irreversibility of deletion.

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 compensate. It does not explain any parameters beyond implying 'confirm'. The meanings of 'name', 'root', and 'target' are left entirely to the schema, which only provides types and constraints, not their contextual role in deletion.

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 a specific action ('Delete') on a 'computed local icon path', which clearly indicates this tool removes an icon-related resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'import_icon' or 'update_icon', though the exact object ('computed local icon path') is somewhat ambiguous.

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 only mentions that explicit confirmation is required, which is a usage condition but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_icons' or 'validate_icon_usage'. There is no context on scenarios where deletion is appropriate or inappropriate.

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