bioc_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds the permission requirement, HTTP endpoint, and an example request. However, it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent and irreversible, whether there are any safeguards or confirmations, or what the API returns upon success or failure. These are important unknowns for a destructive tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear heading, a one-sentence summary, permission note, and a useful example. There is slight redundancy between the heading 'Delete BIOCs' and the summary 'Delete BIOCs selected by filter,' but the summary adds the filter detail. The structure is logical and each section earns its place.

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?

The description provides a practical example and permission context, making it usable for straightforward calls. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the response contains, how success is indicated, or how edge cases (e.g., zero matching BIOCs) are handled. For a delete operation, these missing details leave the tool only partially complete.

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?

The input schema has detailed descriptions for the nested filter fields (field, operator, value) but the top-level request_data parameter has no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool description compensates by providing a concrete example request body that illustrates the structure and interplay of the filters. While it doesn't explain every parameter, the example adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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'), the resource ('BIOCs'), and the selection mechanism ('selected by filter'). It also includes an example request body that reinforces the exact scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bioc_insert and bioc_get through the explicit delete verb and filter-based selection.

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 clear context: this tool is for deleting BIOCs that match a filter, and it explicitly notes the required 'Instance Administrator' permission. While it doesn't name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, the filter-based deletion scenario is well implied and the permission prerequisite adds practical usage guidance.

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