delete_extra_registration

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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure (e.g., confirmation message or error). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place by specifying the target resource, though it could benefit from additional context.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like what 'extra item registration' entails, the consequences of deletion, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool in a domain with many sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'registration_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the extra registration to delete'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 an extra item registration' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('extra item registration'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_monthly_registration' or 'cancel_meal', leaving ambiguity about what specifically constitutes an 'extra item registration' versus other registration types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the registration must exist or be in a certain state), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete during specific windows), or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_extra_registrations' (which might be used first to list registrations). This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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