delete_class_affiliation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description does not need to emphasize destructiveness. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects) beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 one parameter and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention permanence, but overall it provides the necessary context for an agent to understand the basic action.

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 defines one required 'id' parameter (number) with no description. The tool's description adds 'by ID' which is inherent and minimally helpful. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but does not explain the parameter's meaning or format.

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'), resource ('class affiliation record'), and method ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_class_affiliation and list_class_affiliations.

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 only mentions deletion by ID but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_class_affiliation). No prerequisites, consequences, or exclusion criteria are stated.

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