delete_drum_map

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a constraint not present in structured data: built-in maps are protected and must be overridden instead. It does not state whether the call errors on built-ins or what happens to references to the deleted map.

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?

One sentence with the action front-loaded and the constraint in a tight parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and no information is buried.

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?

The tool is simple, destructive intent is annotated, and there is no output schema to explain. However, the undefined 'instrument' argument and the unstated failure behavior for built-in maps leave gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'instrument' parameter, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. It never clarifies whether 'instrument' is the map name, the target drum instrument, or a map identifier, leaving a real ambiguity for invocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a saved drum map'), which cleanly separates it from save_drum_map and list_drum_maps among the siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings or route the agent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical gives an explicit when-not condition: built-in maps can't be deleted. That is real routing guidance beyond the bare purpose, though it doesn't name the alternative action or tool (e.g. override, or where to find saved maps).

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