delete_system_tunable

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds 'WARNING: This is irreversible', providing critical behavioral context beyond the annotation. This clarifies the severity and lasting consequences of the operation, which is valuable for an agent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a necessary warning. No filler or redundant repetition of schema info.

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?

Given the full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not summarize safety mechanisms like the confirm gate or dry_run option, though these are documented in the schema. The irreversible warning and clear purpose make it adequately complete for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameter descriptions present, so the schema handles parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond referencing 'by ID', which maps to tunable_id.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('system tunable'), and the identification method ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_system_tunable, update_system_tunable, and search_system_tunables.

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 usage for removing a specific system tunable, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or mention of alternatives. It does not state that the ID should come from search_system_tunables or that confirm must be true, though these are in the schema.

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