delete_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not say the deletion is irreversible, whether it requires the file to be loaded or a confirmation, or what a successful response looks like — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally efficient. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that gap is accounted for under contextual completeness rather than penalized twice here.

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 two-required-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs to invoke it safely: irreversibility, permission requirements, and error behavior. It is far too thin for the complexity of the operation.

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 'file' and 'trigger' both documented inline, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no mapping between its 'text expansion' phrasing and the file/trigger parameters, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a text expansion), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from create_match, update_match, and list_matches. It loses a point only because it uses 'text expansion' rather than the 'match' terminology of the tool name and siblings, forcing a small inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a match must exist first), and no routing to alternatives such as update_match for modifying rather than removing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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