delete_sensor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive action, but the description does not state whether the action is reversible, whether it affects associated rules or schedules, or whether confirmation is needed, leaving the agent with limited understanding of consequences.

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 extremely compact: one clear introductory sentence and an Args list with a single parameter. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 simple single-parameter deletion tool, the description provides the minimal viable information: what action is performed and which parameter is required. However, with no annotations and no mention of side effects, irreversibility, or prerequisites, it stops short of being fully complete for an agent deciding whether deletion is safe and appropriate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by identifying the parameter ('sensor_id') and clarifying that it is a numeric ID, which is useful though the schema declares it as a string. The explanation is concise and directly tied to the parameter, though it could have explained how to discover valid IDs.

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 specific verb 'Remove' and the resource 'sensor', and adds the scope 'from the gateway'. This distinguishes it from other delete operations (delete_light, delete_group, delete_scene, etc.) and from non-destructive sensor tools like list_sensors, get_sensor, and rename_sensor.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_sensor, set_sensor_config, or even delete_light. There is no mention of contexts where deletion is appropriate, prerequisites, or what happens to related sensor data.

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