rr_delete_agent_context

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

The description discloses that the tool deletes data (destructive) and records actor provenance. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or behavior when the entry does not exist. Without annotations, more transparency about side effects and constraints is expected.

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 concise at two sentences, with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and adds key constraints efficiently.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key constraint but omits return values, error conditions, or confirmation of success. It is adequate for a minimal viable description but could be more complete.

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 fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the constraint that the namespace must be granted to the key, which provides limited additional 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 clearly states the tool deletes one agent context entry by namespace and key, distinguishing it from siblings like get, set, and list. It specifies the verb 'delete' and the resource 'agent context entry', fulfilling a specific verb+resource pattern.

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 a prerequisite ('namespace must be granted to this key') but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rr_set_agent_context or rr_list_agent_context). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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