transportDelete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes a transport' indicates a destructive operation but provides no details about permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, system impacts, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. For a simple delete operation, this brevity is appropriate if other dimensions were adequately addressed.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'deleting a transport' means in this system, whether this affects workflows or data integrity, what confirmation or validation occurs, or what the response contains. The combination of destructive action with minimal documentation creates significant gaps.

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 100% with the single parameter 'transportNumber' documented as 'The transport number.' The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain transport number format, validation rules, or where to find this identifier. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Deletes a transport' restates the tool name 'transportDelete' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb ('deletes') and resource ('a transport'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteObject' or 'createTransport' - it's unclear what distinguishes a 'transport' from other deletable objects in this system.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'deleteObject' and 'createTransport' available, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for specific transport types, system contexts, or workflow stages. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate scenarios.

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