Delete Check

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

The description adds the word 'permanently', which is a behavioral trait not explicitly stated in the annotations. However, it does not disclose any other side effects, failure modes, prerequisites, or what happens to associated data. The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, so the description's contribution is minimal but present.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence and an Args block. Every element is necessary and there is no wasted text. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter destructive operation with annotations indicating destructiveness and an output schema, the description is adequate. The 'permanently' keyword signals irreversibility, and the parameter is explained. It doesn't detail return values, but the output schema likely covers that. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete, though it could mention error conditions (e.g., check not found).

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 schema has no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage), so the description provides the meaning by stating 'Name of the check to delete'. This clarifies the parameter's role, but it does not specify whether the name is a unique identifier, case-sensitive, or how it relates to names in other tools. The description compensates for the schema gap but only at a basic level.

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 'delete' with a specific resource 'check' and adds 'permanently' to clarify the action's scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_check, list_checks, and create_or_update_check.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking existence first, using preview_delete_scenario for checks, or any when-not-to-use conditions. The usage is only implied by the verb 'delete'.

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