delete_education

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' clearly implies destructive action, but the description doesn't state whether it's reversible, whether it affects related entries (e.g., linked tags, relationships), or whether authorization/permissions are required. For a destructive tool with zero 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 phrase with no wasted words. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than concise—the brevity is achieved by omitting useful behavioral context rather than by efficiently conveying 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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a single-id input. Given the tool's simplicity, a one-line description might suffice, but for a delete operation the lack of any warning about irreversibility or cascading effects is a notable omission. Adequate but minimal.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter documented as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the sole parameter.

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 '学歴・教育を削除' (delete education) states a clear verb (delete) and resource (education), which establishes the core purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings—though the sibling list has many 'delete_*' tools, they target different resources so confusion is minimal. It's clear but minimal, providing no additional scoping or context.

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 tool vs alternatives is provided. There's an obvious related tool 'update_education' and 'create_education', but the description doesn't clarify when deletion is appropriate or mention any cascading effects on related data. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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