parse_delete_object

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

The description discloses that the deletion is permanent ('permanentemente'), which is a crucial behavioral trait for a destructive operation. With no annotations provided, this disclosure adds significant value beyond simply saying 'delete'. It does not mention return values or side effects, but for this tool, permanence is the key behavior.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately list the required parameters. No redundant words or filler; every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, the permanence, and the required inputs. It does not describe the response or error cases, but those are less critical for a basic deletion tool. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could have been more detailed, but the essentials are present.

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 mentions both required parameters (className and objectId) and their purpose ('del objeto a eliminar'), which compensates somewhat for the reported 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already states (the schema includes descriptions for both). This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 'Elimina permanentemente un objeto de Parse Server' (permanently deletes an object from Parse Server), specifying the verb (delete), resource (object), and the service (Parse Server). It distinguishes from sibling tools like parse_delete_class and parse_delete_field by focusing on object deletion and requiring className and objectId.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to delete an object from Parse Server, and explicitly states the required parameters (className and objectId). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context and sibling list make the distinction clear.

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