delete_category_tool

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 does disclose a critical side effect ('Feeds in this category become uncategorized'), which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as error handling for nonexistent categories, authorization requirements, or reversibility, so it is only partially transparent.

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 consists of two short sentences that are directly meaningful and front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and a key side effect, with zero redundancy.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and an output schema available, the description adequately covers the primary action and a crucial side effect. It does not mention potential constraints (e.g., cannot delete default categories) or detailed return behavior, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 the only parameter 'category_id' documented in the schema as 'Category ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Delete a category') and the specific resource ('category'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_category_tool and rename_category_tool by being explicitly a delete operation, and the side effect about feeds distinguishes it from feed deletion tools.

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 usage: use this when you need to remove a category. It provides valuable context by noting that feeds become uncategorized, which helps an agent understand the consequences. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the side effect implicitly clarifies its domain.

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