x_config_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete' without detailing irreversibility, required permissions, the effect of scope parameters, or what happens to dependent data. This feels insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for its minimal content.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior and parameter semantics. It lacks any details about how scoping works, whether authorization is required, or what the response will be.

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 schema has 5 parameters with no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description mentions 'tenant/principal' but does not explain parameters like key, scopeUserId, scopeTenantId, scopeAccountId, or authorizationKey. It adds minimal value beyond the schema property names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and names the resource 'tenant/principal Postgres configuration value', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like x_config_get, x_config_set, and x_config_list. This is a clear and unambiguous statement of purpose.

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, no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios. It simply states what the tool does without any usage context.

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