delete_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive tool, yet it only says 'Delete rows'. It omits that the operation is irreversible, that deletions stay pending unless save_edits is set, and that allow_delete_all gates a full-table wipe. The schema hints at these behaviors, but the description itself adds nothing.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally economical for a six-parameter destructive tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive, six-parameter mutation with zero annotations the description leaves critical gaps: irreversibility, the confirmation gate, and the pending-vs-committed edit distinction. An agent could plausibly call it without realizing edits are not persisted by default.

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 100%, so the schema already documents where, map_name, layer_name, save_edits, allow_delete_all and use_edit_session. The description only echoes the where clause and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete rows') plus a scope qualifier ('matching a where clause'). It is clearly distinct from dataset-level siblings like delete_dataset or truncate_table, though it never names an alternative to make that contrast explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing about when to prefer this over truncate_table or delete_dataset, no mention of the edit-session workflow, and no hint that a follow-up save_edits may be required. The agent must infer the entire workflow from sibling names and schema defaults.

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