treeflow_delete_fertilizer

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. 'Elimina' clearly implies a destructive action, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens after deletion. This is a meaningful gap for a delete operation.

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 active sentence with no filler or redundant content. The core action, resource, and identifier mechanism are all front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter tool with fully described schema parameters, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient to invoke the tool. However, no output schema or annotations exist, and the description omits edge behavior such as what happens if the fertilizer_id does not exist or is not associated with the tree. It is adequate but not richly 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 100%, and both parameters have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description only adds 'por su ID' and the 'herramienta o fertilizante' label, which does not materially improve on the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 uses a specific verb ('Elimina') and names the resource ('herramienta o fertilizante adicional') plus the deletion method ('por su ID'). The resource type is distinct from sibling delete tools (branch, leaf, intent, entity, message template), so it is distinguishable. However, the phrasing 'herramienta o fertilizante' introduces slight ambiguity about what the tool actually deletes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing tree_id and fertilizer_id, and no indication of when this tool should not be used. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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