delete_backlink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a JSON object but does not disclose that deletion is permanent, whether the operation is destructive, or any authorization requirements. For a delete tool, this is a significant transparency gap beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 concise and well-structured, with clearly labeled sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. The front-loaded main clause immediately communicates the tool's purpose, and the example is particularly helpful for quick understanding.

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 tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, argument, return type, and an example. The output schema further documents the return structure. However, it lacks contextual guidance about side effects and safety, which is critical for deletion tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps in operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter. It restates the parameter name ('the backlink ID to delete') and provides an example (backlink_id=789) that clarifies the expected numeric format. However, it does not explain where the ID comes from or how to validate it, relying on the schema's title 'Backlink Id' for basic comprehension.

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 starts with 'Delete a backlink from AgencyAnalytics', which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_user, update_backlink, and list_backlinks, making the intended action unambiguous.

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 compared to alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the backlink ID via list_backlinks) or exclusions (e.g., use update_backlink to modify instead). The only implied use case is deletion, which is generic for any delete operation.

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