delete_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important constraint about default/in-use statuses, which warns about potential failures. However, it does not describe what happens when a constraint is violated (error vs. no-op) or the permanent nature of deletion, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 brief sentences without redundancy. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the constraint follows immediately. No unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and a critical limitation. It does not detail return values or error handling, but for a straightforward delete operation, the coverage is adequate.

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 describes 'id' as 'Status ID', but the tool description adds that it must be a custom status not in use, giving the parameter additional semantic meaning. This goes beyond the schema's basic definition and justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('custom status'), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like create_status and list_statuses by specifying the operation and 'custom' scope.

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 clear context for when the tool is applicable and explicitly states when it cannot be used ('Cannot delete default status or statuses in use'). However, it does not mention alternative tools or provide broader usage scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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