ruddur_delete_waypoint_placement

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the required content.manage scope, which is valuable context not in annotations. However, it does not explain what 'deleting a placement' entails (e.g., whether the waypoint is also deleted, reversibility, or side effects).

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 with no redundant wording. It states the action and a key requirement, making every word earn its place.

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 presence of a body parameter on a delete operation is not clarified by the description, nor is the return value explained (no output schema). The description also doesn't differentiate from delete_waypoint. However, the schema is rich, so the tool is not severely underspecified.

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 detailed explanations for pathParams, confirm, and body. The description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema carries the full burden, so a baseline 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 clearly states 'Delete a Waypoint placement' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_waypoint by targeting the placement rather than the waypoint itself.

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 delete_waypoint or update_waypoint_placement. The only additional note is the scope requirement, but there are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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