Delete Peer Review

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

The description adds 'This action is permanent,' which is beyond the destructiveHint annotation, but it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. Given the annotation already flags destructiveness, the added permanence is useful but limited.

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, front-loaded with the action and the key constraint (permanence). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 operation with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention potential failure conditions, effects on related data, or required permissions, but these are not strictly necessary given the simple operation and annotations.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them further. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate as a 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('a peer review assignment from a submission'). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_peer_review and list_peer_reviews, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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