delete_custom_category

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. '削除' (delete) implies mutation/destruction, but the description does not disclose whether deletions are permanent, whether the category's associated entries are affected, whether any confirmation/cascade behavior exists, or what the response contains. For a destructive operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single concise sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately short for a simple delete operation, but is slightly under-specified, which is why it's not a 5.

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?

Despite the low complexity (1 param, no nested objects, no output schema), a destructive tool with no annotations and no behavioral disclosure leaves meaningful gaps. The description should at least note irreversibility or effects on related data. It's functional but thin for a delete operation.

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% since the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool has only one well-documented parameter, so the description doesn't need to compensate much.

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 'カスタムカテゴリを削除' (Delete custom category) uses a clear verb+resource construction with a specific, distinct resource. Among siblings there are many delete_* tools but they operate on different resources (entry, persona, skill, etc.), so this is clearly differentiated by 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 on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that deletion is irreversible, whether it could affect entries referencing the category, or when one might prefer list_custom_categories or get_custom_category first. The when-not case (e.g., category still in use) is absent.

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