Delete module

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that deletion is permanent, that there is no undo, that the user must be asked first, and that the module should be read beforehand so its code can be restored. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a destructive action.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the irreversible risk, and the required safety workflow without waste. The destructive nature is front-loaded, making the tool's risk profile immediately visible.

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?

The annotations cover destructiveness, the schema fully describes all five parameters, and an output schema is present. The description supplies the missing behavioral context: irreversibility, user confirmation, and the document-module restriction. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the input schema already explains all parameters. The description's 'read the module before deleting' guidance aligns with expected_content_token but does not add detailed parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently deletes a VBA module from an Office file and saves it.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like rename, write, or read, and the permanence is stated up front.

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 gives explicit procedural guidance: ask the user first, read the module before deleting, and warns that document modules cannot be deleted. It does not name alternative tools, but it clearly communicates the required preconditions and a key exclusion.

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