medications_delete_medication

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'This action is permanent,' which is critical for a destructive operation. However, it does not disclose other potentially relevant behaviors such as cascading effects, required permissions, or error conditions, leaving some gap in transparency.

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 two short sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Delete a medication record') and adds the key consequence ('permanent') immediately, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 delete tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical behavioral trait (permanence). The presence of an output schema means return details need not be explained. No further information is necessary for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 fully documents the single parameter medication_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning 'medication record,' which mirrors the schema. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a medication record'), making its purpose unambiguous. It clearly identifies the target entity and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for other resources (e.g., notes_delete_tag, feedings_delete_feeding) without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use this over medications_update_medication or medications_create_medication, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions for deletion. The only implicit cue is the action itself, which is not enough for explicit usage direction.

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