gsa_delete

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 says "delete" but never states that data is destroyed, whether the action is reversible, whether it requires a case/analysis to be active, or what the option values mean. For a destructive mutation this is a serious gap.

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, so there is no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a vague verb-resource pairing.

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 not be explained, but the description omits everything critical for a destructive no-annotation tool: what gets deleted, option semantics, and safety/permission context. It is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is described only as "option" with a default of RESULTS. The description says "based on option string" but never explains what values the option accepts or what each selects, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

"Delete results based on option string" restates the name (gsa_delete) with a vague object ("results") and an opaque qualifier ("option string"). It does not distinguish this tool from the many other gsa_* siblings that manipulate results or views.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent cannot tell under what circumstances deletion is appropriate, or what alternative exists, and there is no mention of prerequisites for a destructive operation.

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