delete_feature

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether dependent/child features are also removed, whether the operation is irreversible, or what happens if the name doesn't exist.

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 with the destructive action front-loaded and the discovery hint attached inline. No filler; only slightly thin rather than 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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description needn't explain them. For a destructive mutation, however, the cascade behavior and failure mode are important missing context.

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%, so compensation was needed. The description does clarify that 'name' means a feature-tree entry and points at get_feature_tree for discovery, but gives no matching rules (case sensitivity, exact vs partial name).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a feature') plus the identifying key ('by name'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling suppress_feature, so it stops short of 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 parenthetical '(see get_feature_tree)' gives a concrete prerequisite for obtaining a valid name, which is implied usage guidance. There is no statement about when to prefer suppress_feature over deletion, or any preconditions such as the feature being present.

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