komodo_delete_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation, yet it discloses nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. 'Returns: Deletion confirmation' is redundant given an output schema exists, so it adds no real transparency.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with the action stated first. The Args/Returns formatting is somewhat boilerplate given the output schema, but nothing is bloated.

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 tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified: no permission requirements, no irreversibility warning, no parameter format. The output schema covers the return value, so that omission is acceptable, but the destructive-operation context is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, but 'id: Build ID' merely restates the parameter name without format, source, or lookup guidance. It offers negligible meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a build'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like komodo_create_build, komodo_update_build, and komodo_get_build. However, it offers no scope detail (e.g., what a build is, whether deletion cascades) to further distinguish it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when deletion is inappropriate. The agent gets zero routing help beyond the verb in the name.

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