ym_delete_raw

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

Annotations already mark this destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the confirmation-flag requirement and the open-world scope, and states the success/error return envelope. It could add irreversibility side-effect warnings, but it meaningfully supplements the 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 destructive warning is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args list that maps one-to-one to the schema. There is minimal redundancy and no unrelated content.

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 destructive raw-path nature and sparse schema, the description covers what an agent needs: path format, method, all arguments, mandatory safety flags, and the response envelope. No critical calling requirement is left undocumented.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents all 7 parameters with useful specifics (path syntax, method constraint, host default, confirm flags). Every parameter receives meaning beyond its raw name.

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 first sentence names the operation ('Delete data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog'), with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from catalog-scoped delete_method 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?

It communicates the key usage condition: use for arbitrary paths, including unlisted ones, and only with DELETE plus both confirmation flags. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is otherwise clear.

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