delete_glyph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a critical trait—'This cannot be undone via MCP'—which is valuable for a destructive operation. However, it does not mention side effects on dependent data, required permissions, or what happens to references to the glyph.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the critical irreversibility warning is placed second, making the most important information immediately visible.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the core operation and a key consequence. It is reasonably complete, though it could briefly note return behavior or effects on associated font data. These gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the underdocumented glyph_name parameter, but it only repeats the notion of deleting 'a glyph.' It does not clarify naming conventions, whether the value is a name or ID, or any constraints on the string, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a glyph from the font.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_glyph, create_glyph, duplicate_glyph, and delete_recipe. The added irreversibility note reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 for removing a glyph when that is the desired action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. There is enough context to infer usage, but no direct decision support.

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