delete_shell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it deletes a shell and gives the HTTP method, but does not mention permanence, cascading effects, permissions required, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the HTTP mapping. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 a full schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the return behavior (e.g., HTTP status codes), nor does it mention the 'encode' parameter's purpose beyond the schema. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more context would be expected.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'by its ID' which aligns with shell_id, but does not explain the host or encode parameters. The schema already documents these adequately.

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 'Deletes a specific Shell by its ID' with a specific verb and resource, and the HTTP mapping further reinforces the exact action. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_shell, create_shell, and update_shell.

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 implies usage: if you need to delete a shell, use this tool. However, it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives, and it lacks any mention of prerequisites or conditions such as whether associated resources must be removed first.

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