app_clip_header_images_delete_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the implied DELETE verb. It does not state that the operation is irreversible, what dependent objects may be affected, or what permissions are required.

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?

It is short, but the parenthetical repetition of the same route is pure waste and no useful information is front-loaded because there is nothing else to front-load. Under-specification, not true conciseness.

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 single-resource operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain what is removed, any cascade or block conditions, and failure modes. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer everything from the HTTP verb.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 only restates the tool name in HTTP-route form ('DELETE /v1/appClipHeaderImages/{id}'), duplicated parenthetically. It conveys verb and resource but adds no plain-language purpose and does nothing to distinguish it from sibling operations on the same resource such as app_clip_header_images_get_instance and app_clip_header_images_update_instance.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance whatsoever. An agent gets no signal about prerequisites (e.g., whether the image must be detached from a localization first) or which sibling to pick for a non-destructive operation.

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