delete_hobby

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. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether related entries (tags, relations) are affected, whether auth is required, or what happens to associated data. 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 short phrase, so there is no waste, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. For a destructive operation that warrants behavioral explanation, brevity here reflects lack of useful content rather than efficient prose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate. With a single line merely restating the tool's purpose, the description is inadequate for conveying the full implications of deletion. The 100% schema coverage mitigates the parameter side, but behavioral completeness is lacking.

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 one parameter (id, UUID). The schema already documents the parameter fully, so the description adds nothing beyond the baseline. According to the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '趣味を削除' translates to 'Delete hobby,' which states a verb and resource but is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'delete_hobby.' It adds no detail about scope, what exactly gets deleted (single hobby entry by UUID), or cascading effects, and does nothing to distinguish this from the many similar delete_* sibling tools beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_custom_entry or other delete_* tools. The name makes intent somewhat clear, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or context are offered.

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