delete_rack_macro_variation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: Live exposes no saved variation contents for preview or reconstruction, and confirmation plus an observed count are reported. That is real added value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the destructive constraint plus the irreversibility caveat are front-loaded before procedural details. Every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the essentials for a destructive mutation: confirmation requirement, irreversibility, and that an observed count is returned. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about how the observed count should be interpreted or reconciled with expectedStateVersion.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters (dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, expectedStateVersion). The description only adds the "zero-based" indexing convention for variationIndex, which the schema's minimum:0 does not convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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?

States a specific verb pair (plan/delete) plus exact resource (one zero-based rack macro variation), which cleanly distinguishes it from store_rack_macro_variation and recall_rack_macro_variation. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Plan or delete" plus "Requires confirmation" implies a two-phase flow (dry run, then confirm), and the dryRun schema field supports that. However, it never states when an agent should choose the planning path over the delete path or what alternatives exist, leaving the routing implicit.

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