delete_cosmic_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavioral trait that child star systems and celestial bodies are deleted along with the parent. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the structure is referenced elsewhere, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most consequential fact — the cascade — is stated up front rather than buried. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter delete with no output schema, the cascade disclosure covers the main surprise, but a destructive tool with zero annotations should also state irreversibility and any prerequisite checks. The definition is minimally adequate rather than 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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it fully ('Cosmic Structure ID to delete', 100% coverage). The description adds no format, range, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (cosmic structure), plus the cascade scope that distinguishes it from single-child deletions like delete_star_system or delete_celestial_body. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the cascade note rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though siblings such as delete_star_system and delete_celestial_body are the obvious narrower options. The cascade clause hints that this is the broad-delete choice, but the agent must infer that.

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