superset_annotation_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose side effects and behavior. It fails to mention that deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required to execute, or any safety caveats. The claim that confirm_delete is 'REQUIRED' contradicts the input schema, which lists it as optional with a default of false, misleading the agent about the tool's expected usage.

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 short and front-loaded, using a standard docstring format with an Args section that is easy to scan. It earns points for brevity, but the misleading '(REQUIRED)' for confirm_delete and the lack of elaboration prevent a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is too thin. It does not mention the return value, error conditions, or the semantic effect of confirm_delete (which is central to the operation). The output schema exists but is not referenced, so the agent has to rely on the description for context, which is insufficient.

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 description lists each parameter with a brief label ('Annotation layer ID', 'Annotation ID to delete', 'Deletion confirmation'), but only restates the schema names and types without adding meaningful context. It incorrectly marks confirm_delete as required, misrepresenting its role, and gives no indication that it must be set to true to proceed. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it largely does not.

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 'Delete an annotation from a layer' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like annotation_create, annotation_update, and annotation_get by explicitly indicating deletion, so an agent can easily identify its purpose.

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 a basic 'delete' context but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The presence of sibling annotation tools implies a delete scenario, but there is no direct 'use this when...' or comparison, leaving the agent to infer.

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