ruddur_delete_waypoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable context by requiring the 'content.manage' scope and limiting deletion to creator-owned items, which are behavioral prerequisites not captured in 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?

A single concise sentence communicates the action, the ownership constraint, and the required scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 description covers the core action and an important auth requirement, but it leaves 'creator-owned' undefined and does not mention that a confirm=true parameter is required (which is a key safety behavior, though present in the schema). With no output schema and limited behavioral detail beyond annotations, it feels minimally adequate but not rich.

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 (body, query, confirm, pathParams) are fully described in the schema with high coverage. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, but since the schema carries the weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair ('Delete a creator-owned Waypoint') that clearly states the action and the target. The qualifier 'creator-owned' distinguishes this from sibling tools like ruddur_delete_heading or ruddur_delete_waypoint_note, making the 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?

The description implies the tool is for deleting creator-owned Waypoints, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or point to a non-creator-owned path. The ownership requirement is a usage condition, but guidance on when not to use is missing.

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