value_drop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is 'Permanent' and 'Irreversible', disclosing the key behavioral trait of destruction. However, it does not cover error handling (e.g., behavior if value_id does not exist) or any side effects, leaving minor gaps.

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 consists of two terse, front-loaded sentences: the first declares the action and its irreversibility, the second offers an alternative. Every word is necessary and no redundancy exists.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers essential aspects: what the tool does, its irreversible nature, and when to use an alternative. The only notable omission is parameter description, but the tool's domain may make 'value_id' self-explanatory. Overall, complete enough for an informed selection.

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% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'value_id'. The agent receives no elaboration on what the value_id represents or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 'Permanently delete a value', using a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('value'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool value_retract by mentioning it as an alternative, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly advises to 'Consider value_retract if you want to preserve the record of what was held', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and naming an alternative tool.

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