ps_symbol_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words—'Delete a symbol from the registry.' It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence or permissions, return values, or error handling. For a mutation tool with two required parameters, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable agent invocation.

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 both parameters ('symbolId' and 'reason') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are used for deletion. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('a symbol from the registry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ps_symbol_get' or 'ps_symbol_update' by specifying deletion rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ps_symbol_add_alternative' or 'ps_symbol_verify', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 like 'ps_symbol_update' for modifications or 'ps_symbol_list' for viewing symbols. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing symbol ID from a list operation) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletions). This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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