delete_protein

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete a protein' but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of associated data). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap, though it at least correctly identifies the action as deletion.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a protein') and uses a structured format with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections, making it easy to parse. However, the 'Returns' section is redundant given the presence of an output schema, and the overall content could be more concise by omitting this repetition.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses critical behavioral details (e.g., permanence, permissions). The output schema handles return values, so the description's inclusion of 'Returns' is unnecessary but not harmful. For a deletion tool, more context on risks and dependencies would improve completeness.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'uuid'. It repeats the parameter description verbatim ('UUID of the protein to delete'), providing no additional context such as format examples or where to obtain the UUID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 resource ('a protein'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_proteins', 'retrieve_protein', and 'create_protein_from_pdb_id' by specifying a destructive operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal vs. soft deletion), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the protein's UUID from 'list_proteins' or 'retrieve_protein'), nor does it warn against misuse (e.g., deleting proteins in use by workflows). While the tool name implies a destructive action, explicit usage context is absent.

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