hh_delete_raw

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds essential context: the mandatory confirmation flags, the return format ('{"ok": true, "status", "data"} or the error envelope'), and the openWorld scope ('any path'). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it does not explicitly warn about irreversibility beyond the confirmation requirement.

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 efficiently structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a short note on the target API, a safety requirement line, then a bulleted Args list. It front-loads the key differentiator and the confirmation requirement, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

It provides the target API link for reference, specifies the required parameters and their values, and describes the return format. It doesn't cover error codes in detail but mentions the 'error envelope,' and given the tool's raw nature, this is reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains each parameter in the Args list—path format ('full path beginning with /'), method ('DELETE'), host override, query-string parameters, JSON body, and the two required boolean flags ('must be true'). This adds meaning that the schema titles alone lack, though it could give more detail on query/body formats.

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 specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('data'), and a precise scope ('ANY path, including paths not in the catalog'), which clearly differentiates it from catalog-based operations like hh_delete_method. It also specifies 'DELETE only' and the target API, so an agent understands exactly what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 implies when to use it: for deleting at arbitrary paths not in the catalog, and it explicitly requires confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true, signaling this is for deliberate destructive operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like hh_delete_method or state when NOT to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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