delete_map_feature

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own—nothing about what gets destroyed, whether deletion is recoverable, or the confirm gate.

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 waste that puts the action and target first. It is efficient, though it offers nothing in the way of additional structure or emphasis.

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 destructive 5-parameter delete tool, the description is thin: it never mentions the required confirm flag or the project/document scoping that the schema exposes. Annotations cover safety and there is no output schema, but the definition is only minimally adequate.

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 80%, so the schema already documents resource, project, document, and confirm (including 'Must be true'). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a feature ... from a map') and enumerates the feature types (pin, label, region, path, folder), which is more precise than the bare name. An agent can identify the action unambiguously, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like update_map_feature or delete_resource.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_map_feature, delete_document, or delete_resource. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned; the agent must infer all routing decisions.

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