delete_stack_frame_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is deletion but lacks critical details: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure (e.g., error if variable doesn't exist), or side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete'). However, it could be slightly more structured by including context or usage hints, but it remains appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 complexity of a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails operationally, potential errors, or return values. For a tool that likely modifies state, more behavioral context is needed to guide safe and correct usage, making this inadequate despite the clear schema.

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%, with both parameters ('function_address' and 'variable_name') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but also doesn't detract.

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 target ('named stack variable for a given function'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_stack_frame_variable' and 'rename_stack_frame_variable' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'delete' entails in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the variable must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_stack_frame_variables' for checking variables first. Usage is implied only by the action name, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names without explicit direction.

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