Delete Rows

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: irreversibility ('Permanently delete', 'Deletes are irreversible'), audit logging ('Recorded in tanOS audit_log'), and error handling ('confirm=false returns an explanation without deleting anything', 'Foreign key violations name the dependent rows'). These add significant context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, usage rationale, argument list, return signature, and error handling sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, including the architectural guidance about append-only ledgers, and there is no redundant repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It covers behavior, prerequisites, return format, error handling, and audit trail implications. It also provides enough context about the ledger design to help an agent decide between deletion and updates.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds valuable extra semantics: filters 'must be empty' (constraint not in schema) and confirm 'guards against accidental invocation' (provides rationale). This supplements rather than repeats the schema.

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: 'Permanently delete rows matching a filter.' It identifies the resource (rows), the operation (delete), and the scope (matching a filter). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool baatjie_update by explicitly recommending a status change over deletion when a schema has a status column.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It says 'Prefer a status change (baatjie_update) over deletion wherever the schema has a status column' and gives the architectural rationale. It also states preconditions: 'Requires confirm=true and at least one filter.'

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