faucet_delete

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds three behavioral facts: the mandatory filter guards against full-table deletes, the call returns a count of deleted records, and DELETE permission on the table is required. That is meaningful auth and safety context beyond the annotation, though reversibility/transaction behavior is unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct information (action, safety constraint, return value, permission requirement) with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety guard, the return value, and the required permission, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with an example filter expression; the description adds only the rationale for why filter is mandatory. This is the expected baseline when the schema carries parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (records from a database table) plus the matching condition, which cleanly separates it from siblings like faucet_insert, faucet_update, and faucet_query without opening a schema.

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 imposes a hard constraint ('a filter is required') that implies usage, but never states when to choose faucet_delete over faucet_raw_sql or faucet_update, nor any exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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