delete_patchline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether boxes are affected), failure conditions (e.g., if the patchline doesn't exist), or any other behavioral traits beyond the name itself.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action word 'Delete' and concisely identifies the resource. Length is appropriate for the simple operation, making it easy to read.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, yet the description provides only a minimal one-liner. It doesn't explain what a patchline is in this domain, how endpoints are specified, what the output represents, or any required context. This is far below minimum viability for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing.

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 fails to explain any of the five parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'inlet', 'outlet', 'from_box_id', 'to_box_id', or 'bridge_session_id' mean in the context of a patchline. The phrase 'between two boxes' hints at the IDs but doesn't map them to parameters or explain the port semantics.

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 action (delete) and the object (patchline) with scope (between two boxes). It distinguishes from siblings like create_patchline and delete_box, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when deletion is allowed, or that create_patchline should be used for adding connections. The description provides no directional context.

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