delete_niagara_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the 'force' parameter to skip reference checks but does not explain consequences of deletion (e.g., irreversibility, side effects on dependent assets). It lacks clarity on default behavior when force=false and does not confirm if deletion is permanent.

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 concise with one sentence for purpose and a clear list of parameters. No unnecessary words. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 description is minimal but covers the basic operation. It does not mention output (though an output schema exists), preconditions (e.g., asset existence), or post-conditions. Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but could add more context about side effects or error conditions.

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 description adds an 'Args' section explaining each parameter beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by describing system_path as the path to the asset and force as skipping reference checks. This provides meaningful guidance for both parameters.

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 that the tool deletes a Niagara System asset, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_asset' (generic) and 'remove_niagara_emitter' (sub-component). However, it is somewhat brief and could be more explicit about the asset type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_asset' or other Niagara deletion tools. The description does not mention any conditions like 'use this when you want to delete a Niagara system specifically' or 'avoid if you need to delete with reference checks'.

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