sketch_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses non-atomicity, irreversible deletion, the exact failure codes for stale/foreign refs, cascaded deletions, and the FUSION_API_ERROR partial-delete case with details.deleted. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then proceeds through preconditions, ordering, failure behavior, and return shape. Despite its length, every sentence earns its place by covering behavior that annotations and schema do not.

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 sketch-entity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains scope, preconditions, failure modes, non-atomicity, recovery guidance, and the return object. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and handle partial failures.

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 100%, so the schema already documents sketch, entities, and return_profiles. The description adds an example and deletion ordering for entity types, but it does not add substantial parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: delete sketch entities, explicitly excluding the sketch itself. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as sketch_trim and sketch_get by naming the exact operation and scope.

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?

It gives clear operational context: refs are checked first, deletion proceeds in a defined order, and after a partial failure the agent should re-read with sketch_get. It does not explicitly compare when to choose this over sketch_trim or other sketch-editing siblings, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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