fm_delete_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'delete' but omits whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires special permissions, what side effects occur, or what the response/error behavior is. For a destructive operation this is a significant gap.

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 only three words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical context about the operation's effects, preconditions, and outcome, so the brevity does not serve the agent well.

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?

The tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no additional context about deletion behavior, success/failure responses, or relation to sibling tools. A destructive tool with this profile needs much more contextual disclosure.

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%, with all three parameters clearly described as layout name, database identifier, and FileMaker record ID. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 record' simply restates the tool name fm_delete_record. It identifies the action and object but adds no detail about the target system, scope, or behavior, making it essentially a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fm_update_record or fm_query_records. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for deletion are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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