redis_del

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the readOnly mode blocking, but omits details such as return value (number of deleted keys), confirmation of destructive nature (implicit from name), or error states. The description is insufficiently transparent for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. Every word is necessary, 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., key existence). Combined with no output schema or annotations, the description does not fully prepare the agent for invocation.

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 50% (one parameter documented in schema). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, failing to clarify the 'key' parameter's expected format or behavior. The connectionId parameter is partially described in the schema but not elaborated in the 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 a Redis key') and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like redis_hdel or redis_set, but the core action is distinct enough.

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 notes that the tool is blocked when readOnly mode is enabled, which provides a usage constraint. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative deletion tools (e.g., redis_hdel for hash fields) or scenarios where it is appropriate.

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