Delete competition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: permanent deletion, irreversibility, and the need for a verification code. It does not detail cascading effects on related data, but for a delete operation, the given information is strong.

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?

Two succinct sentences convey all necessary information without verbosity. Every word adds value: 'Permanently deletes', 'Requires verification code', 'Cannot be undone'.

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?

No output schema, but for a delete mutation, the description is sufficient. It explains the core action and prerequisites. Could mention potential side effects on related entities (e.g., participants, teams), but given its straightforward nature, it is still complete enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by emphasizing that verificationCode is required for mutating actions and that deletion is permanent, which reinforces the parameter's importance beyond the schema's definition.

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 clearly states it 'permanently deletes a competition', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wom_edit_competition or wom_create_competition by emphasizing the destructive nature and requirement of a verification code.

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 provides explicit guidance by noting that deletion requires the competition's verification code and that it cannot be undone. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the irreversible nature implies caution.

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