delete_status_page_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the action is destructive by using 'Remove', and it clarifies that the resource is a 'pinned check', which hints that the check itself may not be deleted. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur, leaving significant gaps for a delete operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and key object, with zero filler words. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity and earns its place by clarifying the 'pinned check' meaning. No structural improvements are needed.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks any guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or what behavioral consequences to expect. Given no output schema and no annotations, an agent might not know whether the action is reversible or how it affects the underlying check. The one-liner plus schema is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds only the clarification that a resource is a 'pinned check', which is a slight semantic addition but not essential since the schema already defines resourceUid as a status page resource UID. This stays at the baseline of 3 given the 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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource type as a 'resource (pinned check)' and the scope as 'a status-page section'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_status_page_section (removes a section) and delete_check (removes a check directly). The clarification 'pinned check' ensures the agent understands what a status-page resource is.

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 choose this tool over the many sibling tools, such as delete_status_page_section or delete_check. It implies its usage by stating its function, but it offers no exclusions or alternative routing. An agent is left to infer that it should be used when a specific resource within a section needs removal, without guidance on related operations.

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