delete_key_result

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. The description only states the action—'Delete a key result from a goal'—without revealing whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related checklists/items, whether it requires specific permissions or ownership, or whether it's reversible. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description provides minimal warning that this is an irreversible action.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It states the action clearly and compactly. This is genuinely concise.

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 destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't disclose effects, precondition requirements, or confirm behavior. A mutation tool at this complexity could reasonably note that deletion is permanent or reference related cascading behavior. The single-sentence description is adequate for a read-only tool but insufficient for a destructive one.

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%—the single parameter key_result_id is documented as 'The key result ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter guidance (e.g., where to obtain the ID, format expectations). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'Delete a key result from a goal' has a clear verb (Delete) and resource (key result), with scope indicating it's removed from a goal. It's a single verb+resource statement that's legitimate but doesn't go beyond the obvious—the name and title already communicate exactly this. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like delete_goal or update_key_result, though the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_key_result (to modify rather than delete) or delete_goal (to remove the parent goal entirely). There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences of deletion, or whether deletion is permanent or recoverable. A single sentence offers no context for usage decisions.

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