app_info_localizations__delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or authentication requirements. The description is consistent with annotations and provides the endpoint, but offers little additional value beyond them.

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 clauses with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and immediately provides the HTTP endpoint. Every word 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?

For a simple delete tool, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough context to invoke it correctly: we know it deletes a specific resource by id, that it is destructive and idempotent, and where the id comes from. No output schema is needed for a delete operation. The only minor gap is the lack of any usage context or alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with the helpful description 'ID from the matching list call,' giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself does not add further parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The endpoint path '/v1/appInfoLocalizations/{id}' does reinforce that id is a path parameter, but that is already implied by the schema and endpoint.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('app info localization'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling create/get/update actions. The HTTP endpoint in brackets reinforces the exact operation. This is unambiguous and properly scoped.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like app_info_localizations__update or app_info_localizations__get. It does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or that the ID should come from a prior list call. The only usage hint is buried in the schema, not the description.

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