delete_box

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It indicates the destructive nature via the word 'delete' but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether deleting a box also affects patchlines or data), reversibility, or error conditions. This minimal disclosure lacks important context.

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 sentence that is concise and free of filler. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and potential side effects, so it earns its place but does not provide enough value.

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 tool with two parameters and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits explanation of the second parameter, any prerequisites, and behavioral side effects, leaving the agent without essential context for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The box_id parameter is fairly clear from its name, but bridge_session_id is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's action (delete), the resource (a box), and the context (the attached patcher). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_patchline, which removes a connection rather than an object.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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