mgmt_goal_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete goal' signals a destructive operation but does not disclose permanence, authorization needs, side effects on related data, or response behavior, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. The documentation URL is not integrated into the guidance and adds little actionable context on its own, so the concise wording does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage information.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain side effects, required permissions, and what happens after deletion. The schema covers the parameters, but the description leaves the operation's behavioral contract almost entirely implicit, and the documentation link does not substitute for inline guidance.

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 100% and the parameters are simple and clearly named (counterId, goalId, pretty). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents all parameters adequately for a basic delete call.

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 a specific action ('Delete goal') and identifies the resource, making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from goal read/create/update tools by operation type. It is terse but not tautological; the name and description align well. However, it does not explicitly explain what consequences deleting a goal entails.

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 such as mgmt_goal_update or mgmt_goal_create. It does not mention prerequisites, ownership requirements, or situations where deletion might be inappropriate.

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