rybbit_delete_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait of permanence (irreversibility), which is a critical safety warning. However, it does not mention required permissions, effects on associated data, or error conditions.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the word 'permanently' adds critical context without bloating the length.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description is enough to convey purpose and irreversibility. However, it lacks guidance on usage context, potential side effects beyond deletion, and does not differentiate from other delete tools except by resource type.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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') and the resource ('a goal'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does. It also includes 'permanently' to emphasize the scope, which distinguishes it from potentially soft-delete operations.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rybbit_update_goal or rybbit_get_goals, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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