Delete a dev resource

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds the scope requirement, which is useful for authorization. However, it does not disclose what happens on success (e.g., response status), irreversibility, or side effects beyond the annotation.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the endpoint and scope. It is appropriately short, but it could be slightly more explanatory without adding noise. The key information (method, path, scope) is front-loaded, so it scores well on structure.

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 delete operation with two parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits expectations about the response (e.g., 200/204 status), error conditions, or idempotency. Given no output schema, an agent might not know what to expect after a successful call. Annotations cover destructive nature, so it's adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%: only 'file' has a description in the schema, while 'id' is just a string with minLength. The description itself adds no new semantics—it merely repeats the path placeholders {key} and {id}. It does not clarify what 'id' refers to or how to obtain it, leaving the agent under-informed for half the parameters.

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 HTTP method (DELETE) and the resource path (dev_resources), making it unequivocal that this tool deletes a dev resource. The scope line further confirms it's a write operation, and the title reinforces the action. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_dev_resources or delete_comment by the resource type and method.

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 the required scope (file_dev_resources:write) which is a usage prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_dev_resources or create_dev_resources. There is no mention of conditions favoring deletion over other operations, so guidance is minimal.

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