delete_kerning_pair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the destructive action and the first-master default, but it omits what happens if the pair does not exist, whether deletion applies across all masters, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, these gaps are significant.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then lists each argument in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 description covers the purpose and all parameters, which is enough for a simple invocation. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the lack of error/edge-case behavior and master-scope semantics leaves some ambiguity. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 all parameters. It successfully explains left and right glyph/group names and master_id's optional/default behavior, providing meaning beyond the bare schema types. It could add more syntax detail for groups, but the current coverage is solid.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a kerning pair.' It clearly identifies the operation and even explains the left/right group naming format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like set_kerning_pair or get_kerning, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_kerning_pair. The only usage-related context is parameter behavior, such as the optional master_id defaulting to the first master. This is implied usage at best, but not explicit selection guidance.

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