delete_equation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the equation name is not found, or whether dependents are affected. The two boilerplate sentences about units and 'verified measurements' are irrelevant to a delete operation and read like copy-paste from a geometry tool.

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 operative information is one sentence; the other two are unrelated boilerplate (geometry units, measurement inspection) that cannot apply to a deletion that returns nothing. Signal-to-noise is poor and the irrelevant content comes after the useful part, so an agent may waste attention parsing it.

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, non-idempotent, single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should identify the parameter format and the consequences of the call. Neither is present, and the units/measurement sentences actively mislead about what this tool does. What remains is essentially just the name restated.

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% and the single required parameter 'equation' is an untyped string with no explanation. The description never clarifies whether this is an equation name, an index, or a full expression string, which is the one thing an agent must know to call this correctly. With no schema documentation to fall back on, the description fails to compensate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (equation), which is enough to distinguish it from set_equations and list_equations among the siblings. The remaining sentences (units, 'verified measurements and error evidence') add no distinguishing information and muddy an otherwise clear purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this versus set_equations (which could presumably overwrite) or delete_feature. No prerequisites, no confirmation that the equation must already exist, and no note that the caller should list_equations first to obtain a valid identifier.

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