openwisp_delete_floorplan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (DELETE), signaling a mutating operation, but says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects on related resources such as locations or devices tied to the floor plan.

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?

Two short segments: a category tag, the action, and the endpoint. Front-loaded with the action and free of filler, though the category/endpoint parenthetical is more metadata than agent-facing guidance.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke the call. However, with no annotations to cover the destructive profile, the description should have warned about irreversibility or downstream effects and does not.

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 100%, so the pk parameter is already documented as 'Floor plan UUID or ID'. The description adds only the REST path template, which confirms pk is a path identifier but adds no new semantics; baseline 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+resource ('Delete a floor plan'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like get_floorplan, update_floorplan, and list_floorplans. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, but the verb alone disambiguates.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete' – an agent can infer this is called when removal is desired, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., update or archive), nor any precondition or caution.

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