delete-rolltable

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

No annotations are provided, but the description itself discloses permanent deletion, exact matching requirement, and GM-only restriction. This adequately informs the agent of behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The key information is front-loaded: action, target, method, constraints. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to specify documents, who can use it, and important caveats (permanent, strict matching). It is fully complete.

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 already describes the 'identifiers' parameter as 'Exact ids (preferred) or exact names'. The tool description reinforces 'STRICT resolution', but adds minimal new meaning. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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 (permanently delete), the target (RollTable documents), and the method (exact id or name). It also specifies strict resolution and GM-only access, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-rolltable or update-rolltable.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (delete RollTables by exact id/name) and constraints (strict resolution, GM-only). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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