delete_term

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: deletion fails with an error listing the number of referencing records if the term is in use. It also states the return shape (status, vocabulary, deleted term name). It does not detail permissions or reversibility, but for a simple delete operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 one-line purpose, a brief but necessary behavioral note, then Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence is useful and there is no redundant filler. It is concise while delivering essential information.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and a simple output, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, a critical precondition, return format, and an example. It omits other possible error cases (e.g., nonexistent term) but is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 must explain parameters, and it does. The Args section clearly defines both vocabulary_name (with an example 'Dataset_Type') and term_name. The example call further reinforces parameter usage, fully compensating for the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Delete a term from a vocabulary,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_term, update_term_description, and delete_dataset_type_term by focusing on deleting a term from a vocabulary and explicitly noting the constraint about records referencing it.

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 usage context by stating the term must not be in use and explaining that deletion fails if referenced by records. This communicates when the tool can be used successfully. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios beyond the referential constraint, so it stops short of a 5.

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