poker_deleteTransform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'deletes' without addressing critical aspects: whether this is destructive (implied but not confirmed), what permissions are needed, if deletion is reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a deletion 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, direct sentence in Japanese ('変換を削除します'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity as a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, error handling) or provide usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational guidance.

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 parameter 'name' documented as '削除する変換名' (name of the transformation to delete). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 '変換を削除します' (deletes a transformation) states a basic action but lacks specificity about what 'transformation' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling deletion tools like poker_deleteBody or poker_deleteZone, which suggests similar deletion operations on different resources. The purpose is stated but remains vague without clarifying the 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., if the transformation must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like poker_updateTransform or poker_proposeTransform. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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