delete_chooser_table

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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it loads the asset and REFUSES to delete non-UChooserTable assets, explains how a refusal maps to success=false/deleted=false, and notes idempotency on missing assets.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then layers the typed-delete rationale and returns. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the parenthetical mirror-of note is slightly incidental.

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?

No output schema exists, so the explicit Returns shape ({ table_path, deleted, already_existed, asset_class?, note? }) is valuable compensation. Combined with refusal and idempotency semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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 100% for the single table_path parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description reinforces the '/Game path' expectation but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (destroy/delete) and resource (UChooserTable asset at a /Game path), and explicitly frames itself as the mirror of create_chooser_table. It distinguishes itself from the sibling generic delete_asset by clarifying that it is a typed-delete.

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?

It draws a clear contrast with the generic delete_asset, effectively telling the agent to prefer this for UChooserTable assets because it will not wipe the wrong asset. It stops short of an explicit when-not imperative but the alternative comparison is substantive.

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