sbis_delete_raw

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: deletion is only allowed with confirm_write=true and i_understand_this_modifies_data=true, it is DELETE-only, and it returns a documented JSON envelope. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 well-organized with a front-loaded warning, a clear Args list, and a return note. There is minor redundancy in stating 'DELETE only' and then repeating method=DELETE, and the confirmation requirement is stated twice, but overall every section earns its place.

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 tool's destructive, open-world nature and zero schema description coverage, the description covers all parameters, safety requirements, and the return envelope. It includes a link to the target API and enough context for an agent to invoke it safely, though examples or error-envelope details would make it fully complete.

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 documents all 7 parameters with meaningful summaries: path format, method, host default, query, body, and the two mandatory confirmation flags. It could add more detail on query/body formats, but it provides solid coverage where the schema provides none.

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 action and resource: 'Delete data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog.' This clearly distinguishes it from catalog-scoped delete operations and immediately conveys the raw, open-world nature of the tool.

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 operational context ('ANY path', 'DELETE only', mandatory confirmation flags), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings like sbis_delete_method. The usage scenario is implied rather than contrasted.

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