purge_speaker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates 'complete deletion', which implies destructive and irreversible behavior. However, it lacks details on required permissions, side effects, or reversibility.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, its Korean language may reduce conciseness for an English-speaking agent.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits important details such as expected input format, confirmation of deletion, and warnings about irreversibility.

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%, and the description does not explain the required 'name' parameter beyond the schema. It does not clarify whether 'name' refers to a speaker's name, ID, or other identifier.

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 performs complete deletion of a speaker's voiceprint in response to consent withdrawal. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confirm_speaker or list_speakers. However, it is in Korean, which may limit understanding for non-Korean agents.

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 phrase 'responding to withdrawal of consent' implies a specific use case when consent is revoked. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. The context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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