Delete an object

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

The description merely restates the destructive nature that annotations already capture via destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It adds no extra context about irreversibility, missing-key behavior, authentication, or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler and the core operation is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making this an appropriately concise definition.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the annotations carry important context through destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. However, the description leaves key format and return behavior unspecified, and the lack of an output schema makes this slightly incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'key' parameter. It only repeats the property name by saying 'by key,' without explaining what a valid key looks like or where it comes from, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 operation directly ('delete') with a clear target resource ('object') and the identifying mechanism ('by key'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like put, get, and ls, though it does not name an alternative or scope.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative sibling is mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'delete' rather than explicitly stated.

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