brand_truth_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the side effect: 'This also records rejection memory: the system learns to stop re-suggesting that fact during future extractions.' It also warns about the unintended consequence of permanent learning. This goes beyond the basic delete action and is highly transparent.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the side effect and a cautionary note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, side effects, and usage caution. However, it does not mention expected return behavior or error cases, which could be helpful. This is a strong description for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'id' and 'brandId' having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, only reaffirming 'by ID.' The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a brand truth by ID.' It specifies the verb (delete), the resource (brand truth), and the scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brand_truth_update or brand_truth_list.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use it deliberately — deleting a truth teaches PostKing that the fact should not come back.' This signals caution and explains the irreversible learning side effect, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update instead to retain but modify').

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