delete_history_entry

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning side effects (e.g., permanent deletion), error conditions, or idempotency. This is minimal transparency.

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 sentence of seven words, conveying the essential information without any superfluous content. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by noting that the deletion is permanent or that the entry must exist, but it adequately covers the core functionality.

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% (the only parameter 'id' is described in the schema). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (it merely restates that the ID is a UUID). Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Deletes a history entry by its UUID.' clearly states the action (deletes), the target (history entry), and the identifier method (UUID). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_history' (bulk delete) and 'get_history_entry' (retrieve).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'clear_history'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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