Delete a generator

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description explicitly warns that gen-data lines invoking the generator will stop working and that the gen-data script must be updated accordingly. This is valuable behavioral disclosure that prepares the agent for the tool's ripple effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 primary action and scoped context, followed immediately by the key side effect and required follow-up. No filler or redundant wording.

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 two-parameter delete operation with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the target, the scope, and the consequential gen-data impact. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already sufficiently documents session_id and generator_name. The description does not add extra parameter-level context, but given the complete schema coverage, a baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a precise resource ('a named generator'), and context ('from a draft'). This clearly distinguishes it from related build tools like repovive_build_set_generator or repovive_build_delete_session. The action is unambiguous even without comparing to sibling schemas.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a generator should no longer exist in a draft, and it adds a follow-up instruction to update the gen-data script. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the 'when vs. when-not' guidance largely implicit.

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