Delete Signature

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

The description reinforces the destructive nature (cannot be undone), which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: true). It adds context about Field Productivity records and required parameters, but beyond what annotations already indicate, there is limited added value regarding behavioral traits.

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 relatively short but repeats 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone' multiple times. It front-loads the main action but wastes words, making it less concise than it could be.

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 operation with no output schema, the description fails to mention expected response (e.g., 200 with deleted object or 204) or error conditions like missing signature or insufficient permissions. This leaves the agent with incomplete context.

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 fully describes both parameters (project_id and id) with clear semantics. The description merely restates that they are required, adding no additional meaning or usage hints 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?

The description clearly states that the tool deletes a signature for a given ID and specifies the resource as 'Field Productivity records.' The verb 'deletes' and the resource are explicit, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_signature_project without version suffix or delete_multiple_signatures.

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 instructs the agent to use this tool for permanent deletion but provides no context on when to avoid it or alternatives. It does not mention other signature deletion tools or bulk operations available in siblings.

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