routing_app_coverages__delete

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=true) already communicate the destructive nature, and the description's 'Delete' is consistent. However, the description adds no extra context such as irreversibility, permissions, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource and includes the HTTP endpoint, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one parameter, the description plus schema and annotations provide sufficient context. It does not explain what happens after deletion (e.g., return value, cascading effects), but with no output schema and conservative annotations, this is acceptable. Slightly more detail could be added, hence 4.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'id' ('ID from the matching list call'). The tool description does not add further parameter information. Since the schema already explains the parameter fully, a baseline score of 3 is justified.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('routing app coverage'), making it unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like create, update, and get for the same entity. The endpoint specification reinforces the specific operation.

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 gives a straightforward command but does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast it with alternatives. The parameter hint 'ID from the matching list call' implies a prerequisite. Usage is clear from context, but no explicit guidelines or exclusions are provided.

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