what_if_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a 'deletion scenario' including broken imports and calls, and asks whether it is safe. This clearly signals a read-only analysis with no side effects, which is adequate transparency.

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: a one-line question as title, followed by a bullet-style list of arguments and return description. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple scope (a what-if impact analysis) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but signaled), the description provides sufficient context. It covers the main inputs and output, though it could optionally mention whether the analysis is recursive or project-wide. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema lacks descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description fully explains each parameter: 'path' is the project root, 'target' is the file path or symbol name, and 'target_type' specifies whether the target is a file, function, or class. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the schema's raw property names and types.

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 the purpose: to simulate the impact of deleting a file, function, or class. The verb 'silersem ne olur?' (what if I delete) and the return explanation 'broken imports, calls, safe?' make the tool's function explicit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'what_if_rename' by focusing specifically on deletion.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_impact' or 'find_dead_code'. It only explains the tool's own behavior, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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