delete_composition

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive action, but provides no detail on permanence, side effects on linked assets, or success/failure feedback. The description is minimal and fails to inform the agent about the irreversible nature or any additional consequences beyond the basic 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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain which parameter to supply, whether deletion is permanent, or what happens after success (e.g., returns a confirmation). The lack of annotations and minimal description leaves the agent without critical operational context.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, leaving ambiguity about whether compId, compName, or both are required (both are optional in schema). The description does not clarify usage rules for the parameters, so it provides no added value over 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 'Delete a composition' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (composition), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_composition or modify_composition. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., composition must exist), or cases where another tool (like delete_layer) should be used instead. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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