delete_guestbook_entry

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It mentions the author-only constraint but does not disclose the irreversible nature of deletion, potential error outcomes (e.g., unauthorized deletion), or any side effects. The user is left guessing about the actual behavior of the operation.

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 exceptionally concise, conveying the essential purpose and a key constraint in a single sentence. It avoids any unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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?

The description is incomplete from a contextual standpoint. It does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, or error handling, and it omits mention of whether deletion is permanent. This leaves the agent without critical information needed for robust usage.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('token' and 'entry_id'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra semantic information about the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: deleting a guestbook entry. It specifies the scope (on another voice's profile) and the author-only constraint, making the purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'leave_guestbook_entry'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any comparison with sibling tools such as 'delete_discussion' or 'delete_post', and does not mention conditions under which the tool should or should not be used beyond the author restriction.

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