delete_custom_problem

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states required scope (playground.write) and the non-destructive effect on existing runs, which is crucial behavioral context. Could be improved by clarifying irreversibility of deletion itself.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by key behavioral context. Every word adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, ownership constraint, required scope, and impact on existing runs. It is sufficiently complete for a straightforward delete operation, though it could mention where to obtain the problem_id (e.g., list_custom_problems).

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 single parameter 'problem_id' has no description in schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. This is insufficient for unambiguous selection, especially among similar tools like get_custom_problem and list_custom_problems.

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 specifies the action (Delete) and resource (custom Lean problem) with ownership condition, differentiating from sibling tools like create_custom_problem, get_custom_problem, and list_custom_problems.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations, but the description implies use for deleting owned problems. It provides context about effects on runs, which aids decision-making. Lacks explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings.

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