Delete Macro

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important behavioral details: irreversibility, the 409 conflict condition, and the 204 No Content success response, going well beyond the structured hints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource. Every word contributes: permanence, irreversibility, conflict condition, and success response. No fluff.

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 one-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential outcomes (204 success, 409 failure) and the irreversibility warning. No output schema exists, but the response behavior is specified, making the description complete for this tool's 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?

The only parameter, id, is fully documented in the schema with its own description. The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the verb ('delete'), the resource ('macro'), and the targeting mechanism ('by ID'). It emphasizes 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', which distinguishes it from archive_macros and other macro-related operations.

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?

It provides clear context on when deletion is allowed (not if in use by active rules) and the resulting 409 Conflict, which implies that archiving might be an alternative for in-use macros. However, it doesn't explicitly name archive_macros as the alternative, so guidance is slightly implicit.

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