delete_catalog_alias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the target catalog is not deleted, and it discloses the return format as 'JSON with deletion status'. This goes beyond a bare mutation description, though it lacks details on idempotency, permissions, or error cases, which prevents a higher score.

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-structured with a clear statement, Args section, Returns section, and Example. It is concise and front-loaded, with every sentence providing necessary information without 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?

The description is complete for this simple delete operation: it states the action, key side-effect, parameters, return format, and a concrete example. The existing output schema reduces the need to detail return values further, and the tool's simplicity means no additional context is required.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by providing semantic definitions for both parameters: hostname as 'Server hostname' and alias_name as 'The alias identifier to delete'. This adds meaning beyond the minimal schema titles, and the example reinforces usage. It does not include type constraints or further detail, but it meets the compensation need.

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 the specific action: 'Delete a catalog alias', and immediately clarifies the scope by noting 'The target catalog is NOT deleted'. This effectively distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'delete_catalog', satisfying both verb+resource clarity and sibling differentiation.

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 context that this tool is for deleting an alias while preserving the underlying catalog, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as 'delete_catalog' or state conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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