delete_filter

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful blast-radius context beyond that: only the filter definition is removed and no tree objects are affected. It doesn't state behavior when the filter doesn't exist or whether the deletion is undoable, which would complete the picture.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter deletion with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition gives the agent what it needs to call it safely, including the key reassurance about tree data. It stops short of noting idempotency or recoverability, which the idempotentHint=false annotation leaves open.

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 100% and both parameters (name, namespace) are documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional meaning to either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 saved custom filter') that clearly separates it from creation/list siblings like create_filter and list_custom_filters. The added scope line 'Nothing in the tree is touched' further distinguishes it from the broader delete_object sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the narrow object of deletion (a saved filter definition), and the clarification that tree data is unaffected gives context for choosing it over delete_object. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance.

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