delete-automation-tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Delete' which implies destructiveness, but it does not mention consequences (e.g., impact on dependencies, irreversibility, expected output, or error behavior). This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words; it earns its place, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 delete tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral transparency, which are especially important given no annotations or output schema. While the tool is straightforward, the description does not fully enable correct invocation and expectation management.

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% and the description does not explain the 'tool_id' parameter. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory as an identifier, and with only one parameter, the meaning is partially inferred. Still, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail by not specifying format or purpose beyond the name.

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 action (Delete) and the resource (runbook automation tool), distinguishing it from sibling CRUD operations. It adds specificity with 'runbook' that the name alone doesn't fully convey, though it's still closely tied to the tool's name.

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, prerequisites, or whether deletion is reversible. The only implied usage context is that it deletes a resource, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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