Delete protocol mapper

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

The description discloses that the tool can perform a dry run (write=false) or actual deletion (write=true), and mentions production safeguards via the 'host' parameter. It does not discuss irreversibility or post-deletion effects, but given no annotations, it carries the burden well.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover the action, scope, and key parameter behavior. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the operation and parameter behavior adequately. It lacks details about the return value, but for a deletion tool this is acceptable. The reference to list_protocol_mappers aids completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dry-run concept for 'write' and where to obtain 'mapperId' (from list_protocol_mappers), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 one of a client's protocol mappers by mapper UUID'. It includes the key dry-run vs actual deletion distinction via the 'write' parameter, and the tool's purpose is distinct from siblings like list_protocol_mappers, which are for listing mappers.

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 explains the dry-run mode and the 'write' parameter, giving guidance on how to safely use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear and the context (sibling tools) provides some implicit guidance.

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