mmar_delete_class

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

The description goes beyond the bare name by disclosing permanent deletion and cascading removal of attributes, ports, and role references. However, it omits what happens to class instances if any, and does not mention permission requirements or return behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but still has gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds essential side-effect details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a delete operation with a single parameter, the description covers the action, permanence, and major cascading effects on attributes, ports, and role references. However, it does not address what happens to class instances or guard conditions (e.g., whether deletion is blocked if instances exist). The lack of an output schema is typical for delete operations, but the missing instance impact is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the uuid parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic clarity by specifying that the target is a class (node type) within a metamodel, which helps disambiguate from other UUID-based entities like relation classes or instances. This enhances the schema's meaning.

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 specific verb (Delete) and resource (class/node type) and clearly scopes it to a metamodel, distinguishing it from sibling delete operations like delete_relationclass and delete_class_instance. The addition of 'permanently' and the cascade effects provide a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 implies usage for permanent deletion of a metamodel class, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, though the 'metamodel' and 'permanently' hints give some context. This is adequate but not explicit.

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