Delete Journal

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

While annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true), the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not explain whether deletion is permanent, if it cascades, or if any confirmation is needed. The description adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it misses opportunities to provide helpful context. It earns its place for brevity but lacks substance.

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 nature of the tool (from annotations) and the absence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the implications of deletion, any prerequisites, or the result. It is incomplete for a mutation tool of this significance.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Object ID') and constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details or examples, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a journal entry'). It is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'invalidate_journal' which might have a similar purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts where the tool is appropriate. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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