Delete a Bevel strength routine

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion is a soft-delete implemented by re-sending the full record with isDeleted: true, plus an environment-flag gate. It omits what happens when the id does not exist, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, with the prerequisite second. The parenthetical about isDeleted is dense but earns its place; no filler.

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, two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the deletion semantics, the write gate, and the dryRun escape hatch. Remaining gaps (error behavior on unknown id, what a dryRun response contains) are minor given annotations already state destructiveness and idempotency.

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 0% on two parameters, so the description must carry the load. It effectively explains dryRun (setting it bypasses the write flag, implying a preview/no-op), but says nothing about the id parameter's expected format or scope, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a routine') and immediately clarifies the mechanism ('re-sent whole with isDeleted: true'), which distinguishes it from a hard purge. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like bevel_save_routine, but the name plus verb makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Gives a real invocation precondition ('Requires BEVEL_ENABLE_WRITES=true unless dryRun is set'), which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., vs. simply leaving a routine inactive) or what the dryRun path is for beyond the flag exemption.

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