geck_esp_delete_refs

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

The description does disclose an important behavioral trait: the deletion happens 'directly from an .esp/.esm file', implying an on-disk modification rather than a temporary in-editor change, and it mentions group-size maintenance. However, with no annotations, it still omits safety-relevant details such as whether the deletion is reversible, whether backup is involved, or how the file state changes beyond the deletion.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The main action and the key side effect are stated immediately, and every word adds useful information.

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 file-modifying tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain backup behavior, which plugin is modified, or how this relates to the active plugin and transaction/save workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the operational context is still incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining ref_form_ids, plugin_name, game_dir, or backup. The only implied parameter meaning is that some references are deleted, but the agent gets no help understanding how backup, target plugin, or game directory affect the operation.

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 action ('Delete placed records') and the resource ('.esp/.esm file'), and adds a specific internal detail ('update group sizes'). It is clear enough to distinguish from listing or patching refs, but it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling geck_esp_delete_refs_by_base.

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 alternatives such as geck_esp_delete_refs_by_base or transaction-based workflows. The intended context is only implied by the verb 'Delete', with no exclusions, prerequisites, or warnings about when not to call it.

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