delete_achievement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive/mutating operation, but the description doesn't state whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects related data (e.g., tags, relations), or requires special authorization. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short (one phrase), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. However, given that there's only a single parameter fully documented in the schema, minimal extra content is strictly required. The brevity doesn't waste words but also doesn't earn credit for efficiency since it contributes so little.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description could (and should) disclose more. It should clarify whether deletion is permanent, whether related data is cleaned up, and what success/failure looks like. A single-phrase description that merely restates the tool name is inadequate given the tool's mutating nature.

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 a single parameter 'id' documented as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, with full schema coverage a 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 '実績を削除' (Delete achievement) is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'delete_achievement'. It states the verb+resource but adds no scoping information about what specific achievement entry is being deleted or how it relates to siblings like delete_goal or delete_project. It does minimally distinguish from sibling tools by naming the resource type, but offers nothing beyond the name itself.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There's no mention of when to use this tool, prerequisites, or implications of deletion. The description doesn't clarify whether this is irreversible, whether it cascades to related entries, or when one might prefer this over sibling delete operations. An agent gets zero context about appropriate invocation scenarios.

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