delete_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the destructive, irreversible nature of the operation ("permanently") and clarifies that both the key and its associated value are removed. This goes beyond a simple tautology. It does not mention error behavior or return values, which is a minor gap.

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, clear sentence that fronts the verb and resource, and includes the crucial adverb "permanently." It has no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the destructive effect (key + value), and irreversibility. It does not explain return behavior or what happens if the key does not exist, but these are not critical for a straightforward deletion. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the one parameter ("Checkpoint key to delete"). The tool description essentially restates this without adding new details about format, constraints, or special values. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete 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 the action ("Remove"), the resource ("a checkpoint key"), and adds that the value is also permanently deleted. This distinguishes it unambiguously from sibling tools like get_state, set_state, and list_state.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to delete a checkpoint entry) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like force_set_state. No prerequisites or edge-case conditions are mentioned.

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