delete_dbc_signal

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important behavior: the deletion cascades into value table and attribute entries. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the .dbc file is rewritten in place, or required write permissions — and the presence of a dry_run parameter is never explained.

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 with no filler; the cascade effect is placed where it matters. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing parameter and safety context rather than being purely a virtue.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough. The agent cannot learn what dry_run does, what happens on failure (e.g., signal not found), or what the file-level side effects are.

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 description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters are undocumented, including the three required ones (dbc_path, message_id_or_name, signal_name). Most critically, dry_run is a behaviorally significant flag that the description never mentions, leaving the agent to infer whether it previews or actually mutates the file.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Delete a signal") and adds the cascade scope ("its associated value table/attribute entries"), so an agent knows this removes more than the signal node. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling delete_dbc_message or add_or_update_signal, but the object being deleted is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus delete_dbc_message (deleting a whole message) or add_or_update_signal. No prerequisites, no warnings about destructive intent, and no mention of when a dry run is warranted.

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