Delete Style

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

While annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Detaches consumers — they keep their resolved values and lose only the style link.' This explains the non-destructive impact on consumers, which is not present in the annotations. It also clarifies that only local styles are affected.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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 two well-documented parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: the action, the target, and the key side effect on consumers. It does not discuss error cases or prerequisites, but those are not critical for this straightforward tool.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (styleId and styleName) with 100% coverage. The description only mentions deletion by id and does not elaborate on the styleName parameter, which the schema already explains as the verbatim name from style_list. Thus, the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Delete a local style by id,' which clearly states the action (delete), the resource (local style), and the method (by id). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like style_list and style_manage by focusing specifically on deletion.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies deletion but lacks guidance on when to prefer style_delete over style_manage or other style-related tools. The 'local style' qualifier hints at scope but does not clarify alternative selection.

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