ldap_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions one behavioral trait (blocked in readOnly mode) but does not disclose other important traits such as whether the deletion is permanent, whether it requires confirmation, or any side effects. For a destructive mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the main action and an important constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no superfluous content.

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 (deletion), the description lacks important context. It does not mention if the deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to related data. Without an output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context. The only extra context is the readOnly block, which is insufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what is already in the input schema. The parameters 'dn' and 'connectionId' are adequately described in the schema, and no extra elaboration is provided in the tool description.

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 action: 'Delete an LDAP entry.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'LDAP entry' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ldap_search, ldap_add, and ldap_modify, which perform different LDAP operations.

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 includes a usage constraint: 'Blocked when that connection's own readOnly mode is enabled.' This tells the agent when the tool cannot be used but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ldap_modify instead of delete). The usage context is implied but not explicitly explained.

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