delete_country

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the whole burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the delete cascades to strategic cities. It stops short of stating irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, what happens to cities' embeddings/reports, or failure behavior when the ID does not exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers the essential action plus the cascade side effect. The remaining gap is the destructive-operation context (irreversibility, dependent data handling) that would otherwise come from annotations.

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 100% with a single self-documented required 'id' (positive integer), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, ID source, or lookup guidance beyond that, matching the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Delete a country") with the additional scope note that strategic cities are cascade-affected. It is unambiguous about what is removed, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_city or delete_continent, so the agent must infer the scope boundary itself.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as delete_city for removing a single city, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. permissions or whether dependent reports must be cleaned up first). Only the implicit 'use this to delete' is conveyed.

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