diadoc_delete_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the baseline is lower. The description adds beyond that: it explains that both confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true are mandatory, and that 'nothing is sent without both.' It also discloses the return envelope ({"ok": true, "status", "data"} or error). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 tightly written: a one-sentence purpose, the target API, the mandatory confirmation rule, and a clean bulleted list of arguments. There is no redundancy; every sentence serves a purpose, and the critical safety condition is front-loaded.

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 generic destructive executor with 6 parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to find the operation, what each parameter is for, the confirmation requirement, and the return format. It also provides the API URL and error envelope. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, and the description adds the key operational constraints. Nothing essential is missing.

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 must compensate. It does: each parameter is given a brief but useful explanation—operation_id as an id from the catalog, path_values for placeholders, query as query-string parameters, body as JSON, and both confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data explicitly marked as must-be-true. This provides meaning that the schema lacks, though it could add more detail about constructing the body/query, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint' and immediately clarifies it 'deletes or irreversibly changes data.' This is a specific verb (execute) plus a resource (destructive endpoint) and a clear behavioral scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like diadoc_call_method and diadoc_write_method by explicitly labeling the destructive nature and linking to the API catalog.

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 gives clear context: it is for destructive operations, requires confirmation flags, and references diadoc_search_methods to obtain operation IDs. It does not explicitly name non-destructive alternatives, but the destructive tag and the confirmation requirement strongly imply when it should be used. There are no exclusions stated, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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