apple_delete_accessibility_declaration

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 for a destructive operation. It does not say whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to declarations referenced by a live app version, or what permissions are required — all of which matter for an irreversible mutation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason behavioral details are absent.

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 an unannotated destructive tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state irreversibility and the expected result. It says nothing about consequences or return behavior, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents declarationId fully. The description adds no format hints (e.g., where the ID comes from or whether it is the numeric or opaque identifier), so 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?

The description states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (an accessibility nutrition label declaration), which pairs cleanly with the list/create/update siblings in the same family. It is clear what the tool does, though it relies on the naming convention rather than an explicit contrast with siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus updating the declaration via apple_update_accessibility_declaration, nor any prerequisites such as app/version scoping or whether the declaration must be detached first. The agent must infer all of this from the verb alone.

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