parameter_delete

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses atomicity ('all or nothing'), the exact failure mode (INVALID_PARAMS with `details.dependents`), the constraint that model parameters are undeletable, and the return payload. It does not cover reversibility/undo or permission requirements, which are the remaining gaps for a destructive 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?

Front-loads what it deletes, then the refusal rule, then the return shape, then a concrete example. Every line adds information an agent needs, and the example costs one short sentence.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return format, the atomicity guarantee, and the error/dependents contract. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents `names`; the description nonetheless adds real meaning by explaining that dependency-blocking parameters may be included in `names` to resolve the refusal in one call. That is semantics the schema cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete user parameters') plus a scope qualifier that excludes model parameters, which separates it cleanly from parameter_create/parameter_update siblings. The 'all or nothing' clause further pins down the operation's 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?

Explicitly says model parameters cannot be deleted and tells the agent exactly what to do when a dependents refusal occurs: delete/change the dependents first or include them in `names`. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., parameter_update) as the route for a single-parameter change, but the preconditions and recovery path are clear.

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