delete_mate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real effect ('Its components are free to move again') and the return value ('Returns the mates left'), which is more than baseline. It omits whether the deletion is permanent/undoable and any permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the retrieval hint and behavioral note following. The parenthetical is slightly awkwardly embedded but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the effect on components, and the return value. It is reasonably self-sufficient, missing only permanence/permission detail.

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 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Name', so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying the name identifies a mate and by pointing to list_components and add_mate's 'mate' output as sources for it, adding real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a mate) and scopes it to the current assembly, which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_component and suppress_mate. It does not explicitly name suppress_mate as the non-destructive alternative, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 parenthetical '(list_components, or add_mate's "mate")' implies where the required name comes from, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus suppress_mate or what preconditions apply, so usage is only inferred.

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