icu_delete_gear

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that both gear and its maintenance reminders are deleted, and that activities are not affected. This aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation and provides useful detail about side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. Every sentence adds essential information: the action in the first, and scope clarification in the second. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is fully complete. It explains what is deleted, what is not affected, and the permanent nature of the operation.

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 the single parameter gear_id is described in the schema. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool permanently deletes a gear item and its maintenance reminders, and clarifies that activities using the gear are unaffected. It distinguishes from similarly named sibling tools like icu_create_gear or icu_update_gear.

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 implies usage when a gear item needs to be permanently removed but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., icu_update_gear for edits or icu_create_gear for adding). No exclusion criteria or contextual prerequisites are mentioned.

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