poker_deleteBuildupFactor

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. While '削除します' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to dependent data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information. 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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation steps, error conditions, or what the return value contains. The context signals indicate a simple parameter structure, but the behavioral aspects are critically under-specified for a deletion operation.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'material' clearly documented as '削除する材料名' (material name to delete). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('削除します' - delete) and the resource ('ビルドアップ係数' - buildup factor), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'poker_deleteBody' or 'poker_deleteDetector' that also perform deletion operations on different resources, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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. There are multiple sibling tools with 'delete' operations (e.g., poker_deleteBody, poker_deleteDetector) and related 'buildup factor' tools (e.g., poker_proposeBuildupFactor, poker_updateBuildupFactor), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific deletion is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other deletion or buildup factor operations.

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