carapace_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'your' contributions (ownership) but says nothing about irreversibility, cascading effects, or whether confirmation is needed. For a destructive delete operation, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence that leads with the action verb and states the object. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter, delete operation), the absence of any note about success/failure behavior, permanence, or authorization beyond 'your' leaves it incomplete. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide more context but does not.

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?

The input schema already describes the sole parameter 'id' as 'The contribution ID to delete' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning or syntax details beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states 'Delete one of your contributions from Carapace AI.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('contributions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like query, contribute, get, and update. The scope ('one of your') adds useful precision.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update or query. The phrase 'your contributions' implies an ownership restriction, but there are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools.

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