delete_criterion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious effect — existing alert verdicts are preserved rather than retroactively invalidated — but says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation requirements, or required permissions.

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?

Three tight sentences plus the arg note; the destructive consequence is front-loaded and the alternative is stated immediately after. No filler.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the alternative, and the main side effect. The remaining gap — whether deletion is permanent and whether confirmation is needed — is minor but real given zero annotation coverage.

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 compensate. It names criterion_id and its provenance ('id from list_criteria'), which is exactly the lookup an agent needs; it stops short of format or validation details the schema also omits.

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+resource ('Delete a criterion') and explicitly names the sibling alternative (set_criterion_enabled) for the adjacent pause case, so an agent can distinguish intent without opening either schema.

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 clear when-not-to-use rule: 'Prefer set_criterion_enabled to pause one.' It does not describe a positive trigger condition for deleting (e.g., obsolete or superseded criteria), but the alternative routing is unambiguous.

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