delete_equation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it explains paragraph removal for display equations, inline equation handling, backup slot rotation behavior, atomic validated save, and refusal to operate on Word-open documents. This is far beyond what the schema alone reveals.

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 dense but efficiently organized: primary action first, then display/inline nuance, then backup and safety behavior. Every sentence contributes distinct operational knowledge, with 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the main deletion semantics, backup behavior, edge cases for paragraph removal, and safety constraints. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required from the description. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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. It gives real meaning to 'index' as a list_equations index and to 'backup' via the auto-backup explanation and 'backup=False skips rotation only.' file_path is not explicitly described, but its role is inferable from the operation. Overall, substantial semantic value is added over the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an equation by its list_equations index.' It distinguishes display vs inline equation deletion and clearly identifies the selection mechanism, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from equation-documenting siblings like list_equations and add_equation.

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 when to use it: to delete an equation identified by the index returned from list_equations. It also gives a clear exclusion condition: 'Refuses documents open in Word.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use,' so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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