delete_creature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive mutation, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the creature does not exist, or whether related data is affected. This is a significant gap for a delete operation.

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 very concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It earns a middle score because brevity is present, but the structure does not include important context that an agent would benefit from.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for a delete operation. It does not explain the required campaign context, the effect of the operation, error behavior, or what the agent should expect after a successful deletion.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'id' or 'campaignId' parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify which id refers to the creature, why campaignId is required, or how the two parameters relate.

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 states a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('existing creature'), clearly distinguishing it from get_creature, create_creature, update_creature, and list_creatures. It is concise and unambiguous, though it adds little beyond the tool name.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences. It is implied that deletion is the right operation when a creature should be removed, but the description does not make the usage context explicit.

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