cdp_delete_widget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It lacks critical information about behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond basics, and usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which maps to the 'widget_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'tenant_id' parameter (optional, can be null) or provide any format/validation details. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter names in the schema.

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 'Delete a widget by ID' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (widget), with the specific identifier method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_widget' (read) and 'cdp_update_widget' (modify), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'cdp_delete_dashboard' or 'cdp_delete_report_def' beyond the resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing widget existence), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose other deletion tools for different resources. It's a bare statement of function with no contextual usage information.

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