api_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Guarded' hints at access protection, but the tool does not disclose that DELETE is destructive, what happens on success or failure, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. The transparency is minimal.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, containing no fluff or repetition. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful context, resembling under-specification rather than deliberate efficient structuring.

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 three parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence. It lacks parameter semantics, return-value expectations, error behavior, and clearer auth or safety guidance. The word 'guarded' raises more questions than it answers.

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%, so the description should compensate for the three parameters. It does not explain the path format, how headers should be structured, or what payload is expected. The only implicit clue is 'against API_BASE', which suggests path is relative to a base URL, but headers and payload remain completely unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('DELETE') and a resource scope ('API_BASE'), and the word 'Generic' indicates it is a general-purpose delete wrapper. It is distinguishable from siblings like api_get, api_post, api_put, and api_probe by the HTTP method, so an agent can infer what this tool does.

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 phrase 'Generic DELETE' implies the tool is for performing HTTP DELETE requests against the base API, which gives some usage context relative to the sibling method-based tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives by name, and no conditions or prerequisites beyond the vague 'guarded'.

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