delete_cheatsheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the error condition (CHEATSHEET_LOCKED), required scope (playground.write), and ownership constraint. It does not mention irreversibility, but for a delete operation this is implied.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the action and then adding necessary conditions. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, delete operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers scope, ownership, and error handling. It is nearly complete for this 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'cheatsheet_id' parameter beyond its name. No additional context about format, source, or validation is provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('cheatsheet owned by the calling account'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cheatsheet or list_cheatsheets.

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 a specific condition when not to use this tool (if published on Contributor Network) and mentions the need to withdraw first, pointing to an alternative action. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (withdraw_contributor_network_item), but it is implied.

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