undefine

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains key behaviors: uses DELIT_EXPAND to remove adjacent items, and size determination from end or size with default 1 byte. This provides essential insight beyond the schema.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant information. Efficient and clear.

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?

Covers core behavior, size determination, deletion mode, and return value. Output schema exists, so return value details are sufficient. Missing mention of error cases (e.g., address not defined) but acceptable for a focused tool.

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 50% (describes item structure but not semantics). The description clarifies that 'end' is exclusive, 'size' overrides, and default is 1 byte, adding meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool undefines items at addresses, converting to raw bytes. This is a specific action on a specific resource, distinct from sibling tools like define_code or define_func which do the opposite.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like define_code or when not to use it. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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