delete_celestial_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, cascading effects on related records (embeddings, cluster memberships), or confirmation expectations. Only the bare fact of deletion is conveyed, which is the minimum for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete: it does not state whether the call is idempotent, what a success or failure response looks like, or what happens to dependent data. An agent has no signal about safety or failure handling before invoking an irreversible delete.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Celestial Body ID to delete"), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Delete") with a resource ("a celestial body record"), which is slightly more informative than the name alone because "record" signals metadata deletion rather than physical destruction. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling delete_* tools (delete_cosmic_structure, delete_star_system, delete_cluster_report), so an agent cannot tell from prose what makes this deletion distinct.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite such as resolving the id via list_celestial_bodies or get_celestial_body, and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. The agent must infer everything about invocation context from the tool name.

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