Delete a saved fitting

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context beyond that: deletion targets exactly one fitting, accepts an id or exact name, and is gated on an explicit user request. It stops short of stating irreversibility or behavior on ambiguous names.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action and identifier scope front-loaded, followed by the explicit-request guard. No wasted wording.

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 simple destructive delete with full schema coverage and destructiveHint annotation, the description provides the essential purpose and usage guard. It does not explicitly mention irreversibility or error behavior, but those are minor gaps given the annotations and low complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both the fitting and character parameters. The description echoes 'by id or exact name' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which establishes the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: "Deletes one saved in-game fitting by id or exact name." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fitting_save, fitting_get, and fitting_analyze without needing to name them.

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 an explicit usage condition: "Only do this when the user explicitly asks." That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or when-not scenarios beyond that single restriction.

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