delete_preset

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by describing the two-step safety protocol (user confirmation then confirm=true). It stops short of saying whether deletion is reversible or what happens to a nonexistent preset_id.

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?

Two short sentences, the destructive nature is front-loaded right after the action, and there is no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: what is deleted, that it is destructive, and the confirmation gate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantics. It explains the non-obvious `confirm` flag and when to set it; `preset_id` is left implicit but its meaning is self-evident from the name and the 'user preset' scope.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('user preset'), which is enough to separate it from save_preset, list_presets and apply_preset without opening a schema. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for invocation: ask the user first, then call with confirm=true. Clear usage context, but no explicit exclusions (e.g. what to do about non-user presets).

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