delete_release_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by stating that an API token is required and that the operation is irreversible, which are important behavioral traits for a destructive action. It could further disclose side effects or error behavior, but the key risks are covered.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the authentication requirement and the irreversibility warning. 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?

For a simple delete operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, required credential, and irreversibility. It does not describe the response or error behavior, but given the low complexity this is not a critical gap.

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%: the single 'id' parameter already has a clear description ('削除するリリースノートのID'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 explicitly states the action ('リリースノートを削除します' – deletes a release note) and a specific resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_release_note, update_release_note, get_release_note, and list_release_notes.

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 usage context is implied by the delete verb and resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It provides a prerequisite (API token required) and an important warning (irreversible), but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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