Borrar pregunta de autoevaluación

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the "[irreversible]" tag largely restates structured data. The "Equipo del aula" tag hints at an access/role scope not expressed in the annotations, which is modest added value, but the description says nothing about cascade effects (do recorded student answers get deleted?), whether confirmation is required, or what the response returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the irreversible/scope tag first and the action second, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure concision.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the minimum: what is deleted, from where, and that it cannot be undone. It falls short on the side effects an agent should know before invoking a destructive delete — associated data removal, auth requirements implied by "Equipo del aula", and post-delete state.

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 both required UUID parameters (classroom_id, question_id) carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, scoping or relationship semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for fully covered parameters.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Borra") with a precise resource ("una pregunta de autoevaluación de una lección"), which is enough to separate it from the many adjacent delete tools such as delete_quiz_question, delete_exam_question or delete_flashcard. An agent can identify exactly what is being removed and from which container without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of save_self_check_question as the non-destructive alternative for editing a question, and no prerequisites or confirmation guidance. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource name, which leaves the agent to infer the boundary with the save/update sibling.

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