spatial_delete_area

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds '[changes spatial-service]', which confirms a state change but is vague. It does not mention the confirmation requirement or irreversibility, but the annotations lower the burden; the description provides a minor additional context.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. The bracketed '[changes spatial-service]' is somewhat cryptic and adds minimal value, making it slightly less polished than an ideal two-sentence version, but it is still concise.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description states the primary purpose and resource type. The confirmation workflow is left entirely to the schema, and the side-effect note is vague. Given the annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details, the description is minimally viable but not rich.

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 50% (only 'confirm' has a description, 'pid' does not). The description's mention of 'user area' gives meaning to 'pid' as the area identifier, which is useful. It does not explain 'confirm', but the schema already covers that, so the description adds some value for the undocumented parameter without fully compensating.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'user area', and it references the sibling tool 'spatial_create_area' to specify exactly what kind of resource it targets. It does not explicitly differentiate from 'spatial_delete', but the resource type makes the purpose distinct enough.

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 implies that this tool is for user areas created with spatial_create_area, giving a condition for when to use it. However, it does not name any alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving the routing to inference based on the sibling list.

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