delete_save_game

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful detail beyond that: the irreversibility ('data is gone for good') and the failure semantics ('success is false, with an error, when the engine refuses').

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-loaded with the destructive intent and the engine call, followed by failure conditions. Mild redundancy in listing slot_name/user_index/message in prose and again in the Returns block, but overall efficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 shape, failure behavior, and a verification path, covering what an agent needs. The only minor gap is a lack of detail on what the 'message' field carries or permission requirements.

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 both slot_name and user_index (including its default-0 behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description restates parameter names only in the return list and adds no new semantic guidance, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Delete the save file of a slot') and names the underlying engine operation (DeleteGameInSlot). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like save_game, load_game, and create_save_game.

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?

Gives a clear failure condition ('usually because the slot does not exist') and routes the agent to a verification sibling ('check with does_save_game_exist'). It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use this tool or listing all mutation alternatives, so it falls just under full marks.

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