poker_deleteDetector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a destructive action ('削除します' - deletes) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Japanese with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), nor does it address safety concerns or dependencies. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 100%, with the parameter 'name' documented as '削除する検出器の名前' (name of the detector to delete). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '検出器を削除します' (deletes a detector) states a clear verb+resource action, but it's vague about what a 'detector' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like poker_deleteBody or poker_deleteZone. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain or resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing detector), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like poker_proposeDetector or poker_updateDetector. The description offers no contextual usage information.

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