delete-my-preference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the basic operation (delete a preference) without disclosing side effects, error handling (e.g., behavior for missing keys), idempotency, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence (9 words) with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the action, target, and scope.

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 single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the essential action and scope. However, the lack of behavioral details (error handling, idempotency, return value) and the absence of an output schema leave gaps. It is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to understand all outcomes.

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 description mentions 'by key', which gives contextual meaning to the single 'key' parameter in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, some compensation is needed, and this does partially explain the key's role. However, it does not elaborate on the key's format or behavior, so it stops at a minimum viable level.

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), the resource (a preference), and the scope (by key for the current user). It distinguishes itself from admin sibling tools like admin-delete-user-preference by explicitly noting 'current user', and from upsert-my-preference by being a delete operation.

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 provides clear context: it is for the current user's preferences, which implies it is not for admin operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases (e.g., when to use admin-delete-user-preference instead). This is a minor gap.

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