Delete preset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral constraints: system presets and the currently-selected one are refused. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying edge cases where deletion will not occur. It could still describe the exact error behavior or confirm permanence, but the provided context is meaningful.

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 two short sentences: a clear action statement and a compact type enumeration. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (delete, user preset, refusals) is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple destructive operation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is reasonably complete. It states what it deletes, the constraints, and the type values. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists, and the operation is straightforward. Slightly more detail about consequences (e.g., permanent deletion) would improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by enumerating allowed values for 'type' (print|filament|printer). The 'name' parameter is not explicitly described, though it is implied as the preset name from the tool's purpose. The added type enumeration provides some meaning beyond the bare schema, but the lack of any name description keeps this from being higher.

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 the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'USER preset', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by defining the scope (user presets only) and constraints (system and currently-selected presets are refused). It also provides the type enumeration, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when deleting a user preset of a specific type. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like edit_preset or rename_preset by focusing on deletion, and the refusal of system/selected presets acts as a usage precondition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond the stated refusals.

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