crpt_delete_raw

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description reinforces this by stating 'DELETE only' and the mandatory confirmation flags, adding the key behavioral trait that it works on any path, including those outside the catalog. It also discloses the return format. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 reasonably concise given the tool's complexity. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter list is structured clearly. It is slightly long but every sentence adds necessary information about the API target, method constraint, or parameter semantics. No fluff.

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 raw-path delete with multiple safety flags, the description covers the purpose, the required confirmations, the method restriction, parameter details, and the return envelope. It even names the target API. The only minor omission is the exact error envelope structure, but that is standard and likely covered by the output schema (which exists).

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: path (full path beginning with '/'), method (DELETE), host (override with default), query, body, and the two confirmation booleans that must be true. This adds meaningful semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like crpt_delete_method that target catalog entries. The raw-path scope is explicitly called out, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 that this is a low-level DELETE for any path, and it states the required confirmation flags. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives (e.g., crpt_delete_method for catalog paths). The context implies its use for raw/uncataloged paths, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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