delete_equation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — it does not say whether the deletion is irreversible, what happens to dimensions or geometry driven by that equation, or whether dependent features break. For a destructive operation on a parametric model this is thin.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb first and the cross-reference tucked in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing is padded.

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, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What is left unsaid — consequences for dependent equations and the validity range of the index — is exactly what an agent needs before firing a destructive call, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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 0% and the single 'index' parameter is bare, so the description carries the burden. It does tell the agent where the index comes from ('see get_equations'), which is real added meaning, but it never says whether the index is zero- or one-based or what happens if it is out of range.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus identifier: 'Deletes the equation with that index'. The parenthetical '(see get_equations)' scopes it against add_equation and the broader delete_feature sibling. It stops short of an explicit 'not delete_feature' statement, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 pointer to get_equations implies the precondition (obtain an index first), but usage is only implied. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus deleting a feature, and no warning about when not to call it.

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