kv_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a shared value by key,' omitting consequences like irreversibility, behavior on missing keys, idempotency, or return values. This is a destructive operation, so more context is needed.

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 no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a destructive operation, so while concise, it lacks the necessary contextual structure expected of a well-rounded definition.

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 and the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain safety considerations, error handling, or the project-scope default behavior. An output schema exists, so return values may be covered, but critical usage context is missing.

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 50% (only project_id has a description). The tool description adds nothing about the 'key' parameter or how project_id interacts with it, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation. Agents get no additional meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 the target (shared value by key), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from kv_set and kv_get by the verb alone, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or context such as project scope defaults beyond the schema description of project_id. The intended usage is implied but not stated.

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