delete_game

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a destructive write operation. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing permanence ('permanently delete', 'cannot be undone'), which reinforces the destructive nature beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't mention authentication needs or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides critical behavioral context. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and rich annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description is mostly complete. It covers the irreversible nature, which is crucial. However, with no output schema, it doesn't describe return values (e.g., success confirmation or error messages), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 100%, with the parameter 'game_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and target resource ('a game project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_game', 'update_game', and 'get_game_details'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description implies usage context through the warning 'This action cannot be undone', suggesting it should be used cautiously. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_game' for modifications or provide prerequisites (e.g., authentication status). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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