delete_dataset

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the operation is irreversible and mutates local project data, and that confirm=true is required. This provides essential behavioral traits, though additional detail about permanent disk removal or effects on dependent items could enhance transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and resource types in the first sentence, and irreversibility and requirements in the second. No wasted words; every sentence adds essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, a confirmation flag) and existence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it deletes, irreversibility, confirm requirement, and path constraint. It does not discuss error conditions or return values, but the output schema handles return values. Overall sufficient.

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?

Context indicates schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description explains the confirm parameter must be true and the dataset must be an absolute path inside a PathGuard allowed root, adding critical meaning beyond parameter names. The schema itself also has descriptions, but following given context, the description adds unique value.

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 deletes an existing feature class, table, raster, or geodatabase item, using the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'dataset'. It differentiates from siblings (e.g., delete_field, delete_identical) by specifying the resource types.

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 mentions that confirm=true is required and the dataset must be inside a configured PathGuard allowed root. It implies usage for deleting datasets but does not explicitly contrast with alternative deletion tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. However, among siblings, no other tool deletes entire datasets, so guidance is clear.

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