swapcard_delete_exhibitors

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete exhibitors' without mentioning irreversibility, cascading effects, or permissions required. This is insufficient for a destructive operation, leaving the agent unaware of potential side effects.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 delete operation complexity, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not inform about result feedback, error handling, or confirmations, which are critical for a safe invocation. The description needs more detail to be fully adequate.

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 the description must compensate. It mentions 'by their IDs' but does not clarify that 'IDs' refers to exhibitorIds only, nor does it explain the purpose or format of eventId. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states the action (delete) and the target resource (exhibitors from an event), with a specific method (by IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like swapcard_list_exhibitors or swapcard_upsert_exhibitors by making the destructive intent explicit.

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 implies usage for when deletion of exhibitors is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or scenarios to avoid. It falls short of providing explicit guidance on choosing this over other exhibitor-related tools.

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