delete_career_entry

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 for a destructive operation. The description simply says 'delete' without stating whether deletion is permanent, cascades to related records (e.g., tags, relations), or requires confirmation. There are no annotations to fall back on, making this a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 (a single phrase), which is technically concise, but this under-specification borders on being a tautology rather than intentional brevity. There are no wasted sentences, but the brevity comes from lack of elaboration rather than efficient communication.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain return behavior, idempotency (does deleting a non-existent ID error or succeed?), or any side effects such as cascading deletions to related tag/relation data. A deletion tool of moderate complexity visible among ~80 siblings needs more complete behavioral context.

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 the sole parameter 'id' documented as an entry ID (UUID). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies. With only one clearly-documented parameter, this is adequate.

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 "経歴を削除" (Delete career) is minimal but does convey the action (delete) and resource (career). However, it's little more than a translation of the tool name itself and doesn't clarify what a 'career_entry' encompasses in this domain (e.g., employment history, work experience). It barely distinguishes from the many other delete_* siblings beyond the resource type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't address prerequisites (e.g., whether the entry must exist, whether related data is affected) or contrast with update_career_entry or other career tools. Context is entirely absent.

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