ctx_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the most important trait — permanence and irreversibility ('This action cannot be undone'). It omits other relevant behavior: whether deleting a missing ID errors, whether removal cascades to related entries, and any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the destructive consequence. Every sentence 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema delete tool, the description covers the action, the input target, and the critical irreversibility warning. Only edge-case behavior (not-found handling, side effects on related entries) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'The context entry ID to delete'. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a context entry by ID'), which is unambiguous and easy to distinguish from read-oriented siblings like ctx_get or ctx_search. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g., suggesting ctx_update as the non-destructive alternative), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

'Use this only when you are sure the entry should be removed' gives a weak precondition for use and implicitly warns against casual deletion. However, it names no explicit alternative (such as ctx_update for modification) and gives no guidance on when deletion is the wrong choice versus another tool.

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