test_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the destructive side effect, explicitly naming both the database record and the file as affected. It stops short of stating irreversibility or error behavior, but the core behavioral surprise is covered.

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 conveys action, resource, and side effects with no filler. The parenthetical adds the important file detail without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call safely: it identifies the required input and what will be affected. It could mention permanence or return value, but those are minor for this simple operation.

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% for the single `name` parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by showing that the parameter maps to both the database entry and the `tests/<name>.yatt.json` file path, which is not in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a test from the library'), and further specifies the two storage locations (database and the .yatt.json file). This clearly separates it from sibling list/update/duplicate/validate tools.

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 usage context is clear: use this tool to remove a saved test by name. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs deletion of tests, so the exclusions are implicit.

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