delete_chapter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility and the confirm parameter's role as a safety check. It does not cover permissions or related data effects but is sufficient for the operation's core behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 delete operation with three parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (irreversible, confirm guard). It could mention that it deletes only one variant, but 'single' implies that. Adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning for 'confirm' (must be True), but 'publication_id' and 'chapter_id' are not elaborated beyond their names, which are self-explanatory.

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 'Delete a single chapter variant and its blob,' with a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('chapter variant'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_chapter_from_marks, update_chapter_metadata, etc.

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 specifies the irreversibility and the requirement for confirm=True, providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the confirm guard is a strong directional hint.

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