delete_values_philosophy

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. '削除' (delete) implies destructive behavior, but the description doesn't state whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related entries (e.g., tags, relations), or what happens after deletion. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency 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 sentence that earns its place - it clearly states the verb and resource. It's appropriately minimal for a simple delete-by-id operation, though it could include a brief note about the destructive nature without being verbose.

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 simple delete tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, since it's a destructive mutation with no annotations, it would benefit from a note about irreversibility or cascade effects. The simplicity of the tool (one ID parameter) keeps the completeness score at a reasonable baseline.

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 100% description coverage - the single 'id' parameter is described as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents the id parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional context is needed given only one UUID parameter exists.

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 '価値観・哲学を削除' (Delete values/philosophy) states a specific verb (delete) and resource (values/philosophy), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_values_philosophy and update_values_philosophy. However, it lacks detail about the scope or effect, and the name is very similar to siblings so it's not differentiating beyond the verb.

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 this tool versus deleting other entry types (delete_custom_entry, delete_episode, etc.) or when deletion might be irreversible. The context implies that this tool deletes a specific values/philosophy entry by ID, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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