delete_drawing

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true. The description adds 'This action cannot be undone,' reinforcing the irreversibility. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like permission requirements or effects on related data. The added value is moderate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or extra information. It is highly efficient.

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 delete tool with one parameter and existing annotations plus an output schema, the description covers the destructive nature. However, it lacks usage guidance and fails to mention what happens if the drawing does not exist or any side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% coverage for the single parameter (drawingId), with its own description. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a drawing'), using a specific verb and noun. Among many sibling delete tools, this one is uniquely identified by 'drawing', so it distinguishes itself from tools like delete_document or delete_drive.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any alternative tools (e.g., for archiving or hiding drawings). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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