poker_deleteSource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '削除します' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are dependencies or constraints, or what happens to related data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens after deletion (confirmation? error handling?), whether there are preconditions or dependencies, or what the tool returns. The description provides only the basic purpose without the behavioral context needed for safe 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 'name' clearly documented as '削除対象線源名' (name of the radiation source to delete). The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is appropriately high. The description implicitly confirms this is about radiation sources, which aligns with the parameter description.

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' - deletes) and the resource ('放射線源' - radiation source), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like poker_deleteBody, poker_deleteBuildupFactor, poker_deleteDetector, poker_deleteTransform, or poker_deleteZone, which all perform deletion operations on different resources.

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 deletion tools in the sibling list (deleteBody, deleteBuildupFactor, deleteDetector, deleteTransform, deleteZone), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific radiation source deletion tool is appropriate versus those other deletion operations.

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