gateway_delete

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this operation is destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of side effects, irreversibility, cascading effects, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate since the description provides minimal added transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately minimal for a simple delete operation. However, it could arguably be slightly more informative about the parameter or side effects, but the brevity is not a structural flaw—it is front-loaded and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (one required parameter, a clear destructive intent, and an output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks any context about error Handling, idempotency, or what happens if the gateway does not exist. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the description still does not address potential failure modes or prerequisites, making it only minimally 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%, and the description does not mention the 'gateway_id' parameter at all. The schema only provides the type (string) and requirement, but no format, example, or clarification. Given the low coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it offers no additional semantic value, leaving the parameter's meaning entirely to its self-explanatory name.

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 'Delete' and a specific resource 'gateway', clearly distinguishing this from sibling read/create/update tools such as gateway_get, gateway_create, and gateway_update. The intended action is unambiguous and instantly maps to the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. For instance, it does not mention that the gateway must exist, whether deletion is permanent, or if there are related resources that should be removed first. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameter alone.

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