delete_custom_return_statement

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds detail on deletion modes (by ID, text, or all) but does not elaborate on consequences like potential breaking of functions or irreversible changes. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and directly states the purpose and deletion methods. No unnecessary words; efficient for agent parsing.

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 straightforward deletion tool with three parameters, the description covers all deletion modes and the required helper. It lacks mention of error handling or success confirmation, but the simplicity and annotation support make it reasonably complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that omitting both optional fields results in deleting all return statements for the helper. This semantic is not apparent from the schema alone, where optional fields could be interpreted as just not filtering. The description resolves ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('custom return statement(s) for a helper function'), and outlines three deletion methods. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools that delete other entities.

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?

While the description clarifies the deletion targets, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative approaches (e.g., updating the statement to a new value). No exclusion criteria or context for preference is given.

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