delete_saved_build

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description adds a meaningful authorization constraint ('only when the player asks'), but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the name does not exist, or what the response contains. With annotations present the bar is lower, so this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the constraint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves key agent-facing questions unanswered: irreversibility of the delete, error behavior on an unknown name, and how the build is identified. The safety annotations cover part of this burden, but the description should do more for a tool that permanently removes user data.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone documents nothing about the single parameter 'name'. The description gives indirect context by saying it deletes a 'saved build', which lets the agent infer that 'name' is the build's name, but it adds no detail on exact-match behavior, case sensitivity, or how the player refers to the build. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool where the meaning is largely self-evident.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a saved build from the profile.' That is unambiguous and readable against siblings like save_build or list_modular_parts. It stops short of explicitly naming save_build as the counterpart used to modify or overwrite a build, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

'Only do this when the player asks' is an explicit gating condition that tells the agent when to invoke this destructive tool, which is valuable for a mutation. It does not name alternatives (e.g., use save_build to replace rather than delete) or state what to do when the player is ambiguous, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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