Remove User Data Slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly identifies the operation as destructive ('Delete') and adds a key mitigating behavior ('Wrapped in undo'), which tells the agent the action is reversible. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but for a straightforward delete operation the essential behavioral transparency is present.

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. The first sentence leads with the action and resource, the second immediately discloses the undo behavior. Every part earns its place, and the most important operational cue (where to get the DescID) is embedded naturally.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core call-time needs: what is deleted, how the target identifier is obtained, and that the operation is undoable. The sibling tools (add/list_user_data) complete the workflow picture. Missing explicit return-value or error handling is a minor gap, especially given there is no output schema.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful provenance by stating the `desc_id` path is exactly the one returned by `list_user_data` or `add_user_data`, clarifying how to obtain and reuse that parameter. The `handle` parameter is only described as 'Target' in the schema, but the detailed kind-union in the schema compensates. Overall, the description adds a useful layer beyond the schema.

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 clear action ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a User Data slot'), and the exact method ('by its DescID path'). It also references the source tools (`list_user_data`/`add_user_data`), which disambiguates this from sibling tools like `remove_entity` and makes the operation immediately understandable.

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 clear usage context by telling the agent that the DescID path must come from `list_user_data` or `add_user_data`, which effectively sequences the workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives like `remove_entity`, so it falls slightly short of full exclusion guidance.

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