goclaw_provider_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Remove') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent agents), or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple tool.

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 complexity (a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: behavioral details (destructiveness, permissions), usage guidelines (when to use, alternatives), and expected outcomes. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps that could hinder correct agent invocation.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear 'id' parameter description ('Provider ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on format, sourcing (e.g., from 'goclaw_provider_list'), or validation rules, but the schema suffices for basic understanding.

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 action ('Remove') and resource ('an LLM provider from GoClaw'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_provider_delete' vs 'goclaw_provider_update' or 'goclaw_provider_get', which would require mentioning it's a deletion operation specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the provider ID), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or related tools like 'goclaw_provider_list' to find IDs or 'goclaw_provider_create' for alternatives. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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