poker_deleteZone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a destructive operation (deletion), it doesn't mention important aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. The ATMOSPHERE exclusion is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 communicates the core action and a key constraint. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation steps, error conditions, or what the return value might be. The ATMOSPHERE constraint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'body_name' clearly documented in the schema as '削除するゾーンの立体名' (3D name of the zone to delete). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 resource ('ゾーン' - zone), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like poker_deleteBody or poker_deleteSource, which also perform deletions 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 some usage context by specifying 'ATMOSPHERE以外' (except ATMOSPHERE), which implies when NOT to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like poker_deleteBody or provide broader context about the deletion operation.

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