delete_episode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies data destruction, but it doesn't state whether deletion is permanent, cascading, requires auth, or affects related entities (like tags or relations that might reference the episode). This is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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 brief (one word for the action plus object, effectively a single sentence). It's minimal but not wasteful; however, it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It's efficient 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?

For a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain return behavior, permanence, error conditions (e.g., deleting non-existent IDs), or relationship to the many sibling episode tools (create_episode, get_episode, update_episode, list_episodes). A single-tool description should provide more context given the bare-bones annotation coverage.

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 the single 'id' parameter described as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with full coverage and only one well-documented param, the schema already carries the burden adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'エピソードを削除' (Delete episode) adequately states the verb+resource (delete + episode), which is a minimal clear purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling delete tools beyond the resource name, and there's ambiguity about whether this deletes the episode or just its association — it does at least name the operation clearly.

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 delete_episode vs. alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the episode must exist, whether deletion is permanent/reversible), nor references to related functions like update_episode or get_episode for verifying before/after deletion.

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