Delete preset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond that: the operation is refused for system presets and for the currently selected preset. It does not say whether deletion is reversible or requires confirmation, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraints, with the enum spelled out at the end. The fragmentary 'type = print|filament|printer' styling is slightly rough but efficient and earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this covers the critical decision points: what gets deleted, what cannot be deleted, and valid type values. Only the semantics of the 'name' argument and any failure/response behavior remain undocumented.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define the allowed values for 'type' (print|filament|printer), which the schema itself lacks. However, the 'name' parameter is left unexplained — no note on whether it is the preset name, case sensitivity, or how it combines with type to identify the target.

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 ('Delete one of the user's presets') and scopes it to user presets only, excluding system presets and the currently selected one. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as edit_preset or rename_preset, but the delete action is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance: never a system preset, never the selected one. This is exactly the kind of exclusion an agent needs before attempting a destructive action. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. select_preset first, or edit_preset), so it is not a full 5.

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