delete_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool deletes and that ref can be various forms, but it does not reveal whether the deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Given that this is a destructive operation, more transparency is critical.

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 very concise at two sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('Delete interface') and then explains the parameter. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter details.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks important context such as irreversibility, authorization requirements, and potential impact on dependent resources. These gaps make it insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 describes ref as a required string with no additional details. The description adds that ref can be an id, name, or path, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format, examples, or how to distinguish between these types. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but remains minimal.

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 'Delete interface' and specifies that the ref parameter can be id, name, or path. The verb and resource are specific, and in the context of sibling tools like create_api and get_api, it's clear which resource is being deleted. No sibling tool has a similar delete function, so differentiation is not required.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the interface must exist first, or suggest what to do before deleting (e.g., using get_api to confirm the correct ref). There is no explanation of when deleting is appropriate or what happens to related resources.

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