delete_macro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'confirm=true' requirement, which hints at a safety mechanism, but fails to describe critical traits like whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the core action and a key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. For a delete operation, this minimal information is inadequate to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('name' and 'confirm'). The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the 'confirm=true' requirement but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema, such as macro naming conventions or confirmation implications.

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') and resource ('a saved macro'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like 'delete_sd_file' in the sibling list, which would require mentioning what distinguishes macro deletion from file deletion.

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 minimal guidance by noting the 'confirm=true' requirement, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_macros' for viewing or 'save_macro' for creating. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is given, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic parameter constraint.

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