gmb_qanda_locations_questions_answers_delete

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation is limited to the current user's answer, the resource is under a question, and the tool is deprecated. This helps the agent understand the exact behavioral scope.

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 that includes the deprecation status, HTTP method, resource path, and action. Every word contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 deletion tool, the description adequately explains what it does and the scope. However, it lacks a recommended replacement for the deprecated functionality, and there is no output schema or mention of expected responses. The annotations cover safety aspects, but the absence of alternative guidance leaves a 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add extra semantics about the name format or query parameters, but it clarifies that 'name' refers to a question path. This is baseline value; no additional parameter insights are provided.

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 the verb 'Deletes', the resource 'the answer written by the current user to a question', and includes the REST method and path. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list, upsert, and question-level delete, and the deprecated marker adds clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention replacement tools or exclusions, aside from the implicit 'current user' scope. The '[DEPRECATED]' label hints that it should not be used but does not point to an alternative.

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