deleteWorld

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

Annotations are absent, and the description provides no behavioral disclosure about the delete operation: it is silent on permanence, cascading deletion of associated data (heroes, quests, timeline), failure modes, or any side effects. For a destructive tool, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent without essential risk awareness.

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 a single concise sentence 'Delete a world' that entirely fulfills the purpose without superfluous content. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite the tool's structural simplicity, the description is incomplete for a destructive operation. It lacks critical context about the irreversible nature of deletion, the scope of what is removed, and error conditions (e.g., world not found). An agent cannot fully assess the side effects of invoking this tool, making it insufficiently 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 100% coverage with a clear description for the single required parameter 'worldId'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Delete a world' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (world), distinctly differentiating it from sibling tools like listWorlds, loadWorld, or getWorldState. The verb and object are explicit and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any warnings about prerequisites or consequences (e.g., cannot delete a world with active quests). The description relies solely on the tool name to imply usage, offering no contextual or exlusionary information.

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