mhlb_delete_student

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

The description adds critical behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: irreversibility, data loss (order history), and the fact that it is unverified and derived from compiled API client. It also instructs the user to inspect the dry-run preview, which is valuable transparency that annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with write operation).

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 concise and well-structured: action first, then consequences, then a crucial warning. Every sentence adds value, and the note is prominent without being verbose.

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 delete operation, the description covers the key aspects: irreversibility, data loss, verification status, and dry-run mechanism. The schema provides parameter details, and no output schema is needed for a delete. It is complete for safe 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (studentId from mhlb_list_students, confirm as a boolean gate). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Remove a student') and the resource, distinguishing it from update or create operations. It also specifies the consequence (order history removed), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 when to use (when permanent removal is desired) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_student or mention conditions for not using. It provides context about irreversibility but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance given the sibling set.

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