sw_delete_feature

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why the low destructiveness is credible: only features the server itself created this session can be removed, everything else is merely suppressed. That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about reversibility (e.g. whether sw_undo can restore the deletion) or what the call returns.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (session-scoped deletion only) is placed where the agent will read it 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at minimum hint at the result of the call and clarify the required 'feature' identifier; it does neither. The scope constraint is well handled, leaving a mutation tool that is adequately but not fully specified.

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 only 50%: 'doc' is documented in the schema, but the required 'feature' parameter carries no description anywhere. The description does not compensate by explaining whether 'feature' is a name, index, or tree path, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent will hit when calling this tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a feature') plus a meaningful scope restriction ('this server created in this session'), so the agent knows exactly what class of object is affected. The parenthetical about suppression implicitly separates it from sw_set_suppression and sw_delete_body, but neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (feature was created by this server in this session) and a when-not signal ('others can only be suppressed'), which tells the agent to fall back to suppression for pre-existing features. The alternative tool is only implied by the word 'suppressed', not named.

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