delete criterion

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

It goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that calibration history is permanently lost and that aliases gated on this criterion lose their gate. It also specifies the permission requirement and error cases, providing a clear behavioral contract. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: core action, endpoint/API scope, return shape, permission, error behavior, and side effects. It is dense but not bloated, and the most important information is 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 one-parameter delete with no output schema, the description is complete: it documents the response, permissions, not-found behavior, and cascading side effect on aliases. No critical information 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?

The input schema already covers the only parameter (id) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add param-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies; the description does not contribute extra parameter semantics.

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 action on a specific resource: 'Permanently delete a criterion and its calibration history.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_alias and delete_eval.

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 gives useful context (OWNER/ADMIN only, workspace-scoped 404, alias side effects) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_criterion or delete_alias. The usage is implied by the delete verb rather than explicitly routed.

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