delete_shared_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a shared context item,' which implies a destructive action but does not state whether deletion is permanent, idempotent, or scoped to a project. It also does not mention permissions or what happens if the item does not exist. This significant gap makes the tool's behavior opaque.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, though it does not contain any 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. For a deletion tool, the agent needs to know whether the action is destructive, reversible, or scoped to a project. The description provides none of this context, making it incomplete for the complexity of the operation.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (key, category, project_id), covering 100% of the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('shared context item'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_shared_context and set_shared_context through the verb, but does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it misses a top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are mentioned. The usage is only implied by the tool name and the presence of sibling tools, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool confidently.

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