delete_chapter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cascading deletion ('and all its lessons'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it fails to mention permanence, reversibility, or any side effects on related entities.

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 very short and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the primary action. The 'Args' formatting adds a bit of structure, but it's acceptable. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important context like error handling, permanent deletion, and potential impact on other tools (e.g., enrollments or quizzes referencing lessons). It is minimally complete for a simple delete action but lacks depth.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning over the schema: it repeats that 'chapter' is a string labeled 'The chapter name.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context, such as format, constraints, or example values.

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 a chapter and all its lessons') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_chapter' and 'get_chapter' by focusing on deletion and cascading effect.

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 versus alternatives, such as prerequisites, permissions, or consequences. The description does not provide any context for appropriate usage or warnings.

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