delete_profile

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' implies destructive action, but the description doesn't state whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it requires special permissions, whether associated data (skills, career entries, etc.) is affected, or what the response looks like. For an irreversible mutation 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?

Extremely concise at one short phrase, which earns points for brevity. However, this borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness - the description is so minimal that it reads like a tautology of the tool name rather than a deliberate, information-dense summary. There's no structure or elaboration that helps an agent make decisions.

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?

Given that delete_profile operates on a major resource type (profile) in an ecosystem with dozens of related entry types (skills, projects, achievements, career entries), the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what a profile is, whether deleting it cascades to sub-entries, or whether there are constraints (e.g., cannot delete the primary profile). No output schema exists to describe return values, compounding the gap.

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?

The schema has only 1 parameter (id, required) and 100% schema description coverage, with the description already stating it's an entry ID (UUID). The baseline of 3 applies here due to full schema coverage. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but since the schema fully explains the single parameter, a 4 is reasonable - there's no parameter meaning gap to fill.

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 'プロフィールを削除' (Delete profile) states a verb + resource clearly enough, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's essentially a restatement of the tool name 'delete_profile' and provides no detail about scope, what gets deleted (only the profile itself or associated entries like career, skills, projects?), or side effects, which is critical for a destructive operation.

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. With many sibling deletion tools (delete_skill, delete_project, delete_episode, etc.) and related profile tools (create_profile, update_profile, list_profiles), there's no clarification about the relationship between profiles and these other resources, nor whether deletion cascades to dependent data. The context is the presence of a profile entry but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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