pattern_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that deletion can happen by name or index, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, how invalid or duplicate patterns are handled, or whether indexes are zero-based or one-based. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action and selection mechanism are front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple one-parameter tool, though slightly too terse for a destructive operation to earn a 5.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the structural burden is low. But because it is destructive and has no annotations, the description should provide more context about reversibility, error behavior, and how indices are expressed. As written, an agent cannot confidently invoke it without additional assumptions.

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 coverage is 0%, and the schema only says patterns is an array of strings. The description adds the key semantic that each string may be a piece name or an index. However, it leaves the index format unspecified and does not explain how the tool distinguishes names from indices.

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 names a specific action ('delete'), a resource ('pieces'), and a selection mechanism ('by name or index'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like pattern_create or pattern_list. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from pattern_ops or clarify whether 'pieces' means pattern pieces.

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 tool versus siblings such as pattern_edit_points or pattern_ops, and no stated prerequisites such as listing available patterns first. The only usage signal is the delete verb itself, which is weak for a destructive operation.

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