jazz_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires 'privileged backend access' and mentions the JAZZ_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES flag, which explains the operational condition for destructive writes. It also explicitly states 'Delete one Jazz row,' indicating the scope of destruction.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and includes a critical operational note about the write flag. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: it deletes one row, requires privileged access, and is gated by a configuration flag. It does not explain return values (none expected) or parameter syntax, but given the tool's simplicity and existing annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 by explaining parameter meaning. It does not mention 'table' or 'id' at all, nor does it clarify how they identify the row. The phrase 'one Jazz row' implies the need for identifiers, but the description fails to explicitly connect these parameters to their function.

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 one Jazz row') with a specific resource ('Jazz row') and scope ('one'), making it distinct from sibling tools like jazz_query, jazz_insert, and jazz_update. The inclusion of 'native delete operation' reinforces its purpose as the deletion tool.

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 mentions that the tool is 'Disabled unless JAZZ_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true', which is a clear prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The usage is implied as the delete operation, but no direct comparative guidance is given.

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