delete_pump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is permanent, which is good, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., cascading deletes), potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, more transparency is expected.

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 two short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second provides workflow guidance. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a simple destructive operation.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with no nested objects or output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key workflow by directing users to fetch the interval first. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any side effects beyond 'permanently delete' (e.g., irreversibility, but that is already implied). It does not explain the child_uid parameter at all.

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%, but the description adds critical context by clarifying that 'interval_id' is for a pump interval and directs the agent to retrieve it from another tool, which partially compensates. However, it does not explain 'child_uid' semantics (though it is self-explanatory). With only 2 simple string params, the description adds some value beyond the schema.

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 'Permanently delete a pump entry' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (pump entry), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_diaper' or 'delete_feed'. It lacks explicit naming of sibling alternatives but is specific about the action being permanent, which is clear.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Get the interval_id from list_pump_intervals first', providing a sequential workflow hint. It implies the tool is for deleting after retrieving intervals, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. This is clear context but no exclusions.

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