delete_npc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., edges), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise but poorly structured with unnecessary line breaks ('Delete\n an existing\n npc\n from\n the\n knowledge\n graph'), making it less readable. The content is front-loaded with the core action, but the formatting detracts from clarity.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like what happens on success/failure, return values, or side effects. With 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the parameter part is adequate, but overall context for safe usage is lacking.

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%, with the parameter 'name' clearly documented in the schema as 'The name of the npc to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('an existing npc from the knowledge graph'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_artifact, delete_currency) beyond specifying the npc resource type, which is somewhat implied but not strongly contrasted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., npc must exist), consequences, or when to choose other tools like update_npc or delete_nodes. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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