delete_glossary_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Delete' and 'Returns: Success status or error,' but does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to related data, requires any permissions, or what error behaviors to expect. For a destructive operation this is a significant gap.

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 compact and structured with Args and Returns sections. It contains no redundant wording and every sentence contributes 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is borderline adequate: it covers the action, the parameter, and a generic return. Missing details like prerequisites, idempotency, and error specifics leave an agent without enough context for robust use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that term_or_id accepts either a case-insensitive term or a UUID string. However, it doesn't explain how to distinguish a term from a UUID, the expected UUID format, or behavior when multiple entries match. Partial compensation for a single parameter, hence a 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('glossary entry') and specifies the lookup method ('by term or UUID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_glossary_entry, update_glossary_entry, lookup_term, search_glossary, and list_glossary.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Unlike get_calls, it does not reference sibling tools like update_glossary_entry or delete_fact to help with selection. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the verb.

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