delete_decoration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important behavioral fact for a destructive tool: the default operation is recoverable and the permanent option erases. It still omits what 'retire' actually does to the preset (hidden from listings? still referenced?), any permission requirements, and any mention of the 'confirm' parameter's role.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb+resource and then immediately states the default/recoverable-vs-permanent distinction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained 'confirm' parameter, the description covers the critical reversibility question but leaves meaningful gaps: the effect of retiring on references and listings, how recovery is performed, and how confirm/permanent interact.

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 67% and the description adds real meaning for 'permanent' (false = retire/recoverable, true = erase permanently), which goes beyond the schema's bare 'Default: false.' It says nothing about the 'confirm' parameter or the required 'preset_id', so half the parameters remain unilluminated.

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 and resource ('Delete a decoration preset') and even names the two modes of deletion, so the agent knows exactly what operation it is. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings such as archive_decoration_preset or unarchive_decoration_preset, whose 'retire' semantics appear to overlap with the soft-delete described here.

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 does distinguish between the two internal modes (default retire vs. permanent erase), which implies when each is appropriate. But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related archive_decoration_preset, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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