gripp_delete

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

With no annotations, the description explicitly states the operation is permanent ('permanently changes Gripp data') and that confirm is required. It clearly discloses the destructive nature, though it doesn't detail any side effects or error conditions.

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 sentences that are direct and to the point. Every word adds value: names the action, identifies the resource, and explains the confirm requirement.

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 3-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential behavior. It doesn't describe the return value or errors, but given no output schema, this may not be critical. Slightly incomplete for a destructive tool that might need rollback information.

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% and already describes all parameters. The description adds context for the confirm parameter ('permanently changes Gripp data'), but this largely repeats the schema description of confirm. No additional meaning for other 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?

The description clearly states 'Delete a Gripp entity by ID.' It specifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from other tools like gripp_create or gripp_update.

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 notes the requirement of confirm=true and explains it's because the operation permanently changes data. It implies destructive use but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like gripp_getone for verification.

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