beta_feedback_crash_submissions_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 burden and delivers nothing. For a destructive delete it fails to disclose irreversibility, required auth/roles, whether the parent submission is affected, or what is returned. It only repeats the route.

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 only content is the same route string written twice, which is pure redundancy rather than concision. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no informational content to front-load.

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 delete-by-id endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum convey that this is a destructive removal of a beta crash feedback submission. That context is entirely absent, leaving only the mechanical route.

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?

There is a single parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it ('the id of the requested resource'). Per the baseline rule for high coverage, 3 is appropriate; the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but nothing is missing either.

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 is just the raw HTTP route "DELETE /v1/betaFeedbackCrashSubmissions/{id}", duplicated inside parentheses. It does encode a verb (DELETE) and a resource (betaFeedbackCrashSubmissions), which is marginally more than a pure name restatement, but it never states in plain language what the resource is or what deleting it means for an agent.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus siblings like beta_feedback_crash_submissions_get_instance or beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions_delete_instance, nor any prerequisites (permissions, ownership, confirmation). None is implied either.

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