delete_goal

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. The description only states 'delete goal' with no mention of destruction irreversibility, cascade effects on related entries, permission requirements, or any side effects of deletion. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a major gap — the agent has no way to know deletion is irreversible or what collateral damage may occur.

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 short phrase, so it is concise in length. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — it says almost nothing beyond the tool name. This is not efficient compression of useful information but rather a minimal placeholder.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line tautological description, the description is severely inadequate. It should clarify the entity being deleted, irreversibility, prerequisites (an existing goal), and any cascade effects on related data.

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% and there is only one parameter. The schema documents 'id' as an entry ID (UUID), which fully specifies the required input. With a single, well-documented parameter at 100% coverage, the description has little additional burden to carry.

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 '目標を削除' (delete goal) restates the tool name almost verbatim — 'delete_goal'. It's a tautology that simply translates the function name and adds no specificity about what a 'goal' is or what kind of deletion occurs (e.g., hard vs soft delete). For a tool with no title, the description should clarify what a goal represents in this domain.

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 given on when to use delete_goal versus similar delete tools among siblings (delete_skill, delete_project, delete_achievement, delete_hobby, etc.). There's no mention of prerequisites, e.g., whether a goal must be fetched first or whether deletion cascades to related entries. Users would need to infer usage purely from the entity type name.

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