destroy_bot

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 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. There's no wasted text, and the structure is logical with purpose first, then parameters. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information about the tool's destructive nature.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like whether deletion is permanent, what confirmation is needed, what errors might occur, or what the response contains. The agent lacks necessary information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 description adds the parameter 'bot_id' with a brief explanation ('The ID of the bot to delete'), which provides basic semantic context. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this meets the baseline expectation without adding significant value beyond what's minimally required.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a bot'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_block' or 'destroy_group', but the specificity of 'bot' as the target resource provides adequate differentiation.

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's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or when to choose this over other deletion-related tools like 'delete_block' or 'destroy_group'. The agent receives 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.