delete_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Delete a saved strategy,' implying destructive action but not stating permanence, irreversibility, or any associated effects. The note about unreliability is a guideline, not a behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the action verb and object. Every word earns its place; the 'proven unreliable' clause adds meaningful usage guidance without verbosity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to cover irreversibility, prerequisites, or outcomes. While the tool is simple, the agent still needs to know that deletion is permanent and what the response might be.

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 has one parameter 'name' with no description, and the tool description provides no parameter-level detail. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate but does not mention how to specify the strategy. The parameter meaning is left entirely to the schema field name.

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 uses a specific verb 'delete' and resource 'saved strategy', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_skill or save_strategy. The phrase 'that has proven unreliable' adds usage context but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 clear usage condition—only delete strategies that have proven unreliable—which guides the agent on when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, stopping short of a full 5.

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