Delete An Project Equipment Log

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces that the action is permanent and cannot be undone. This adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating the irreversibility, which is critical for agent decision-making.

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 includes redundant phrases ('This cannot be undone' appears twice). While it is relatively short, the redundancy reduces conciseness. It could be more streamlined without losing meaning.

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?

The description explains that the tool deletes records and that it is permanent, but given the lack of an output schema, it does not describe the response or side effects. This is adequate for a delete operation but leaves some gaps (e.g., confirmation of deletion, error conditions).

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (project_id and id). The description simply restates them as 'Required parameters: project_id, id' without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline score of 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 action: 'Delete an Project Equipment Log' and explains it permanently removes Field Productivity records. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from other delete tools among the many siblings.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool: to permanently delete specified Field Productivity records. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the clarity of purpose is high and the irreversibility is emphasized.

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