delete_variation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'delete' without disclosing consequences, error behavior, idempotency, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Delete'. Every word adds value and there is no 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 destructive tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on what happens to dependent visuals, whether the operation is reversible, and what errors might occur. This makes it insufficiently complete.

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?

The schema covers only 25% of parameters (variation has a description). The description adds 'from a column' and 'by variation name', helping to clarify that 'table' and 'column' identify the target and that 'variation' is the name. However, sessionId and table remain unexplained, and the description does not fully compensate for the low schema 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 verb 'Delete', the resource 'date-navigation variation from a column', and the method 'by variation name'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_variation and list_variations.

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 this tool (to remove a specific variation from a column) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Since there is no alternative delete_variation tool, the context is sufficient but lacks formal guidance.

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