delete_zone_set

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: monitors fall back to the default set ('Halves'), deleting is immediate and irreversible, and built-in sets are refused. This fully covers the tool's side effects and constraints.

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?

Five sentences each add distinct value: core action, fallback behavior, restriction, irreversibility, and alternative/context. Nothing is fluff; information is front-loaded with the purpose first.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, restrictions, irreversibility, and an alternative. It is contextually complete for correct invocation.

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 already covers the 'name' parameter with high-quality description referencing get_state. The tool description adds the important constraint that built-in sets are refused, going beyond schema to clarify valid values.

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 opens with 'Delete a saved zone set by name,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like assign_zone_set by noting the alternative and restricting operation to user-created sets (built-ins are refused).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (delete a saved set) and when not to, advising 'use assign_zone_set instead when a monitor should merely stop using a set that others still need.' It also specifies only sets made with save_zone_set are eligible and points to get_state for listings.

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