delete_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'delete' inherently implies destruction, the description does not mention irreversibility, whether connected elements are affected, or any permission requirements. This lack of context could lead an agent to underestimate the action's impact.

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, front-loaded sentence containing exactly the necessary information: the action, the target, and the input method. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 the tool's low complexity and the schema's thorough parameter documentation, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits any mention of outcome (e.g., success/failure behavior) or post-conditions, which would be helpful for a destructive operation, though not strictly required for invocation.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with a clear resource ('any widget from a mural') and specifies the input mechanism ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are all create/update/get operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage: it is the only delete tool among widgets, so the context is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites, such as permission requirements.

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