counter_delete

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It clearly communicates the irreversible destructive nature ('permanently delete') and the fact that historical data is included. However, it does not address error scenarios, permission requirements, or post-deletion behavior, which could be useful.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the essential behavior without any extraneous words. Every word 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?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is functionally complete: it names the resource, the permanence, and the historical scope. It does not describe return values or edge cases, but these are less critical for a destructive action with minimal schema complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter counter_id with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to permanently delete a counter and all its history. The verb 'delete' is specific, the resource is a counter, and the scope (all history) is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like counter_reset or counter_get.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as counter_reset or counter_parse_and_apply. The description implies permanent removal but does not explicitly mention exclusions or when users should choose this over a less destructive sibling.

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