Delete documents from an Infino table

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavior: it returns the number of rows matched and removed, and it requires durable storage rather than memory://. This goes beyond the structured 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action and example, the return value, and the safety prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is 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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, what it returns, and the storage precondition. The safety hint to verify with count/sql rounds out the picture, making it complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'table' and 'predicate' already described. The tool description repeats the predicate example but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states a specific action ('Delete the rows matching a SQL predicate') and identifies the resource (rows in an Infino table). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like infino_drop_table by targeting rows rather than the whole table, and from query tools by emphasizing deletion.

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 explicit pre-use guidance: 'Check the predicate first with infino_count or infino_sql.' This tells the agent when to use related tools before invoking deletion. It does not explicitly contrast with infino_drop_table or infino_update_documents, but the context is clear enough.

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