attributes_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that default attributes cannot be deleted, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or irreversible nature, leaving gaps.

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, using two short sentences to convey the essential action and a key constraint. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a constraint. However, it omits details like return value confirmation or parameter format, which would be expected for full completeness.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, providing no added meaning about what the ID represents or how to obtain it.

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 (custom attribute), and distinguishes from sibling tools like attributes_create by focusing on deletion. It also specifies that default attributes cannot be deleted, adding precision.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for custom attributes but lacks guidance on when not to use or compare to other attribute tools. The constraint about default attributes is helpful but not sufficient for clear differentiation.

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