beta_feedback_crash_submissions__delete

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

The description only repeats the delete operation already indicated by the destructiveHint annotation and adds no new behavioral context such as permanence, effect on related data, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict annotations but fails to go 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 a single, front-loaded sentence including the endpoint path. Every part is informative with no filler, making it highly concise and 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?

For a simple delete operation with a fully described parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is complete for the core action and resource.

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%: the single 'id' parameter includes the useful note 'ID from the matching list call.' The tool description itself adds no further parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('beta feedback crash submission'), making it unambiguous and distinguishable from related tools like beta_feedback_screenshot_submissions__delete. The REST endpoint is also included for clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The only contextual hint comes from the schema's parameter description, not the tool description.

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