delete_optimization

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

The description does not add behavioral details beyond the annotations, which indicate idempotentHint=true. It fails to disclose critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by their presence but adds minimal value.

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 a single sentence, 'Delete an optimization.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to its lack of helpful detail.

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 complexity as a deletion operation with no annotations on safety or behavior, and with schema coverage at 0% and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It does not address key aspects like what deletion entails, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, meaning the schema lacks descriptions for parameters. The description does not compensate by explaining the 'optimizationId' parameter's semantics, such as format, source, or validation rules. With one parameter and no schema guidance, this leaves the agent guessing about proper usage.

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 'Delete an optimization' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'delete_optimization' without adding specificity. It does not clarify what an 'optimization' is in this context or distinguish it from similar tools like 'delete_backtest' or 'delete_object' among the siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the optimization must be in a specific state, or exclusions, such as not using it for active optimizations. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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