delete-record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this—it doesn't specify whether deletions are permanent, reversible, have confirmation steps, or affect related data. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets baseline expectations but doesn't provide rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. Annotations cover safety (destructive), and schema covers parameters fully, but the description doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' entails (permanent? soft delete?), error handling, or return values. It meets basic requirements but leaves gaps for informed usage.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema (record_id and resource_type with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between record_id and resource_type or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('record of any supported type'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove-record-from-list' or 'batch-operations' that might also involve deletion operations, preventing 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 like 'remove-record-from-list' (which removes from lists but doesn't delete) or 'batch-operations' (which might handle bulk deletions). It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations.

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