props_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description fails to specify critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., affecting associated collections), or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the essential action, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), expected outcomes, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. Given the complexity of a delete operation in this context, the description should provide more guidance to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The ID of the prop to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete a specific prop' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific prop'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'props_clear' (which likely clears multiple props) or 'props_delete_collection' (which deletes collections rather than individual props), preventing a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the prop ID), exclusions (e.g., not for collections), or comparisons to siblings like 'props_clear' or 'props_delete_collection', leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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