delete_instrument

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that all fields belonging to the instrument are removed, the operation fails if the record-ID field is present, and returns a confirmation message with the count of removed fields. It does not mention permissions or irreversibility explicitly, but the destructive nature is clear.

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 well-structured, leading with the core action, then detailing behavior, followed by an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information: what happens (all fields deleted), a key constraint (record-ID field rejection), and the return format (confirmation with count). The AI agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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 schema only provides 'Form Name' with no description (0% coverage), so the description's 'form_name: Internal name of the instrument to delete' adds crucial semantic meaning, clarifying that the ID is the internal name, not the display label.

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 'Delete an instrument and all its fields from the project,' which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. This also distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_records (removes data) and remove_field (removes a single field).

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 implies the tool is used when deleting an entire instrument with all its fields, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. It does note that REDCap rejects the operation if the instrument contains the record-ID field, which is useful guidance, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is made.

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