delete_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are dependencies or cascading effects, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like whether the deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, what happens to dependent resources, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a delete operation and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more behavioral 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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information about 'component_id'. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by ID', which confirms the parameter identifies the component, but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to find it, or provide any examples. This doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 target resource ('a component by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_component_folder' by specifying component deletion rather than folder deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_story' or 'delete_asset' beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_asset, delete_story, delete_component_folder), but the description doesn't help an agent understand when component deletion is appropriate versus other deletion operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.

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