es_delete_by_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions that deletion is blocked when readOnly mode is enabled, but fails to disclose other critical behavioral details: whether the deletion is synchronous or async, if acknowledgements are needed, error handling, or impact on indices. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then add a key behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place. 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?

Given that this is a destructive, bulk operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks context on return values, error states, limitations, and differentiation from similar sibling tools. It covers only the core purpose and one edge case (readOnly block).

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter (index, query, connectionId). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for any missing parameter context.

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 tool's purpose: deleting all documents in an index matching a query. It uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('documents in an index matching a query'), and it distinguishes well from sibling tools like es_delete_doc (single document delete) and es_search (search only). No ambiguity.

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. For example, it does not differentiate between es_delete_by_query (bulk delete) and es_delete_doc (single doc). The only behavioral note is about readOnly mode blocking, but that is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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