delete_checkpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The description reveals a key constraint (cannot delete completed/dependent checkpoints) but does not specify what happens on violation (error vs no-op), permissions, or reversibility, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the core action and the key restriction. It is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 simple delete tool with two schema-documented parameters, the description provides the essential purpose and constraints. It does not explain error behavior or side effects, but given the lack of output schema and low complexity, it is reasonably complete, though not exhaustive.

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 schema descriptions already cover both parameters (milestone_id, order) at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a checkpoint from a milestone'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_checkpoint, update_checkpoint, and complete_checkpoint.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use restriction: 'Cannot delete completed checkpoints or checkpoints that others depend on.' However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools (e.g., update_checkpoint) or a broader when-to-use context beyond the purpose statement, so it stops short of a full 5.

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