iyke_scratchpad_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool is idempotent, but omits side effects, return values, error conditions, and any security or authorization requirements. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 concise at two sentences, with no filler. Every word is functional. This is efficient for an experienced user who already understands the domain.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description fails to provide enough context for reliable use. There is no mention of success/failure indicators, error handling, or the effect of idempotence on the system state. The tool is simple but still under-documented.

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 0%, yet the description adds almost no meaning beyond parameter names. 'by scope+name' does not explain the role of scope or name, their formats, or valid values. The user is left to guess.

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 action (Delete) and the resource (a scratchpad) with the key identifier (scope+name). It also notes idempotence, which adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling scratchpad tools (write, append, read, list).

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 like iyke_scratchpad_write or iyke_scratchpad_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or scenarios that would make this tool preferable.

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