Delete Bike Rows

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: deleted rows and children are permanently removed, undo only available via Bike's undo. This fully informs the agent of 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?

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, warning, args, returns, examples, and errors. Each sentence is necessary and front-loaded with key warning.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return value format and error messages. Annotations handle safety, schema handles parameter, description covers behavior and examples. Complete for a destructive 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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that row_ids is an array of IDs, children will be deleted, and provides examples of usage with specific IDs.

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 it deletes one or more rows from the document, using a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('rows'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, and query.

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 includes a prominent warning about destructive nature and permanence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The context of siblings implies usage, and examples help clarify.

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