erinys_delete

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: deletion cascades to dependent rows via FK rules, which alerts the agent to side effects. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to related data beyond the cascade. This partial disclosure warrants a mid-range score.

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 sentence that is concise and free of unnecessary details. It earns its place by stating the action and the cascade behavior, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, straightforward delete action) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits important context such as whether the deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required, or any restrictions on use. These gaps are notable because there are no annotations to fill them, making the description slightly incomplete for a tool with side effects.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'id' parameter, and the description only implicitly defines it as the identifier of the observation to delete. While this is sufficient to infer the parameter's purpose, it does not explicitly state that 'id' must be an existing observation ID or handle edge cases like non-existent IDs. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves room for clarification.

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 an observation') and the specific resource (an observation), along with the cascading behavior on dependent rows via FK rules. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like erinys_forget and erinys_prune by explicitly naming 'observation' as the target, which is more specific than generic deletion/removal verbs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like erinys_forget or erinys_prune, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply describes the action without context on appropriate use cases, which is a significant gap given the number of similar sibling tools.

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