Delete a feature

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags that this operation is destructive. The description adds a valuable behavioral warning: features added after the deleted one may fail to regenerate. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent of downstream consequences.

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 deliver the core action and the most important risk in a front-loaded, efficient way. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 single-feature deletion, the description provides the essential target and consequence. It does not explain return behavior or mention irreversibility explicitly, but the destructive annotation and regeneration warning cover the main context an agent needs.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific action ('Remove one feature') and a clear resource ('from the tree'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. It is naturally distinguished from siblings like update_feature and add_feature by the delete semantics.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_element or update_feature. It implies the use case by describing the action, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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