delete_command_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the main action. While efficient, the parameter section could be slightly more integrated, but overall it avoids waste and maintains focus.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, resulting in a mediocre score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'row_id' corresponds to 'The id field from history records', clarifying the parameter's source and context. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, leaving some ambiguity. With 1 parameter, this partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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') and resource ('a command-usage record by its id'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_history_tool or search_commands_tool by specifying deletion rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the verb, missing full differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing record), exclusions, or recommend other tools for related tasks. With siblings like get_history_tool available, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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