delete_alias

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'This cannot be undone,' which is a critical warning about the irreversible nature of the operation, and the suggestion of an alternative further clarifies the destructive semantics.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides a warning and alternative, making it well-structured.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the irreversible consequence, and a safer alternative. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is largely complete, though it omits any mention of the parameter or potential side effects beyond permanence.

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 description does not mention the 'alias_id' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the parameter's purpose and usage unexplained.

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 tool's purpose: 'Permanently delete an alias.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly suggests an alternative, distinguishing it from related operations.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to prefer the alternative: 'Prefer update_alias with active=false if the user might want it back.' This gives a clear condition for choosing this tool over its sibling.

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