delete_data_table_row

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

Annotations only say destructive/not-idempotent; the description adds that the asset is saved, that the result is self-verifying via re-read (existed/removed/still_exists/row_count), and that dependent handles silently resolve to nothing. The silent-reference-breakage disclosure is exactly the kind of consequence no annotation conveys.

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?

Action and scope are front-loaded, and the Returns block is clearly separated. It is dense—two long parentheticals pack in detail—so it is slightly heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return field list itself and explains how to interpret existed vs removed, plus the downstream consequence of stale references. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this mutation is missing.

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%, so row_name/table_path are already documented. The description confirms row_name is the lookup key and lists the return keys, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 precise verb, resource and lookup key: 'Remove one row from a DataTable by key, saving the asset...'. The scope (single row, by key, saved, verified) is specific enough to separate it from row-add/rename siblings and from curve-table deletes.

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?

Provides a real precondition and an alternative: 'audit with find_blueprint_node_references before deleting a live row', which tells the agent when extra care is needed. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the nearest siblings (rename_data_table_row, delete_curve_table_row, remove_string_table_entry), so routing is implied rather than stated.

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