Delete property definitions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real substance beyond them: the values on ALL elements are lost, the deletion is a single undo step, and undo restores the values. That directly answers the 'what gets destroyed and can I recover' question an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive consequence before the built-in caveat and return shape. No filler; every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({results: [{guid, name, group, type, deleted} | {error}]}) plus the irreversibility/recovery model. For a destructive two-parameter tool, nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 already documents both parameters in depth (the properties array with its anyOf GUID/group+name/builtIn forms, and undoName), so the description carries little additional parameter meaning. Schema description coverage is roughly 50%, and the description does not explain undoName or the matching resolution rules beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Deletes user-defined property definitions') and immediately scopes it against the sibling operations by noting built-in properties cannot be deleted, distinguishing it from delete_property_groups and delete_attributes. The one-undo-step framing also signals the operation granularity.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not constraint ('Built-in properties cannot be deleted'), which steers the agent away from attempting built-in deletions. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives such as modify_property_definitions or delete_property_groups, or state prerequisites, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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