ds_delete_avu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'delete' but does not state that this is destructive/irreversible, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the AVU does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target scope come first. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

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 destructive mutation with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits permission requirements, error/failure behavior, and the id-vs-attribute selection rule, leaving behavioral gaps the structured fields do not cover.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, and notably does not clarify the interaction the schema hints at (attribute can be ignored if id is supplied).

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 (Delete) and resource (AVU) plus the full set of target scopes (file, directory, resource, or user). An agent can distinguish it from siblings ds_add_avu and ds_list_avus purely by the verb without opening a schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools (e.g. ds_list_avus to confirm what exists before deleting). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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