delete_curve_table_row

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description enriches this by spelling out the exact idempotent outcome (existed=false/removed=false without error) and the verification behavior (still_exists). This adds real behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though it restates idempotency already implied by annotations.

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 tight sentences plus a return-shape line, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted filler; the return block is arguably verbose but informative since no output schema exists.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety-relevant behavior (idempotency), the success/failure signals, and the full return shape. What it lacks is any guidance on permissions or side effects like asset saving, so it is not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the '(curve)' clarification for row_name but no format or syntax detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (delete) and resource (a named row/curve from a UCurveTable), plus a verification clause. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_curve_table_row and rename_curve_table_row, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself, and the idempotency note tells the agent calling it twice is safe. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to a sibling for managing curve-table rows.

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