evidence_delete

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., cascading deletes), error handling for nonexistent records, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the action. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every word contributes to the 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?

Despite having output schema (assumed) and full schema coverage, the description lacks crucial context: it does not mention that specialized delete tools exist per evidence type, nor does it describe return values or error states. A tool with 3 parameters and no behavioral disclosure is incomplete.

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%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the distinction between id and kod or the format of the evidence parameter. 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 'Delete a record from any AbraFlexi evidence' clearly states the action (delete), resource (record), and scope (any evidence). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contact_delete or product_delete by indicating it works for any evidence type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the specialized delete tools (e.g., contact_delete). The description does not mention that specific evidence types have dedicated tools, which could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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