Delete a user capability

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable non-obvious behaviors: bare slugs are rejected due to shadowing, builtins refuse deletion, and unknown names raise instead of silently no-op-ing while listing existing user capabilities. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences each add necessary information: the operation and source, the exact-name requirement and rationale, and the error behavior. No filler or repetition of the 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 a single required parameter degraded by 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining valid input, scope restrictions, and failure modes. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required here.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden for the name parameter. It does so thoroughly: exact full name, user/ prefix, source via list_agent_capabilities, and rejection of bare slugs. This is far more useful than the raw schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a capability previously saved with `save_agent_capability`'. It clearly scopes the tool to user-saved capabilities and distinguishes it from builtins, making it unambiguous among siblings like save_agent_capability and list_agent_capabilities.

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?

It gives concrete input guidance: use the exact full name list_agent_capabilities reports, with the user/ prefix, not a bare slug. It also states an explicit when-not case: builtins cannot be deleted and will refuse with a clear message.

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