delete_pynet_module

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

The description adds 'permanently' to the existing destructiveHint annotation, emphasizing irreversibility but not disclosing other traits like required permissions or effects on dependencies. The annotation already signals destructiveness, so the description adds minimal new insight.

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 7-word sentence, very concise. However, it is too brief to inform the agent adequately, sacrificing substance for brevity.

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 destructive tool with two required parameters, the description lacks important context such as error handling (e.g., if module doesn't exist), dependencies, and whether the deletion cascades. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 description does not explain the parameters 'pid' and 'module_id' beyond what is in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool relies entirely on the description for parameter meaning, which it fails to provide.

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 states the tool deletes a module and all its contents, clearly specifying the verb 'delete' and resource 'module'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_script_button', which also delete but on different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools that also perform deletions. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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