delete_definition

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does so meaningfully: it states that deletion is recoverable because the previous version is kept in history, and it warns that dependent artifacts become broken until replaced. This goes well beyond a generic 'deletes a definition' statement.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable consequence information that earns its place.

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?

Given that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the two most important contextual aspects: recoverability and downstream breakage. The output schema exists so return-value details are not required. It is slightly incomplete in not framing when to prefer this over alternatives, but it is otherwise sufficient for a single-parameter deletion tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema already shows. The parameter is simple and self-descriptive to some degree, but the description adds no clarification about what name refers to or any format/constraints, leaving the full burden on a schema that contains no descriptions.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a definition'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like save_definition, get_definition, and list_definitions by stating it is the removal operation.

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 gives helpful context about the consequences of deleting, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the tool name and the CRUD-style sibling set, but no direct routing or exclusions are provided.

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