delete-journal

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

The description discloses destructive and irreversible operation ('permanently delete') and access restriction ('GM-only'), but with no annotations, it lacks details on effects (e.g., cascading deletes) or error handling. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with action and resource, followed by constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description does not mention return values (e.g., success/failure count). It covers the operation adequately but lacks completeness on expected output. With simple deletion and no annotations, a score of 3 reflects this gap.

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 coverage is 100% with description of identifiers as exact ids or names. The description adds 'STRICT resolution' but does not provide additional meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool deletes JournalEntry documents by exact id or name, distinguishing it from create, update, list, and search siblings. The 'GM-only' and 'permanently' further specify scope and nature.

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?

It specifies when to use (exact identifiers) and constraints (no fuzzy matching, GM-only), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives. However, sibling tools cover other operations, making the context clear.

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