delete_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely important behavioral trait: dependent features are also deleted, so the blast radius exceeds the named parameter. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, undo/rollback, permission requirements, or whether dependent features are silently removed or cause an error — all critical for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentence with the resource and the cascade warning front-loaded in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter tool this is roughly adequate, especially since the schema fully documents the argument and no output schema exists to explain. But as an unannotated destructive operation, the missing undo/reversibility and failure-mode information leaves a meaningful gap for safe 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already specifies the feature name string with an example format ("BLOCK(1)") and points to list_features. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ("Delete") on a specific resource ("a feature"), and names the cascade effect on dependent features. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling query tools like list_features without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisite that the part be open or the feature be identified first, and no caution about using it during an active modeling operation. The only implicit guidance is that the feature name should come from list_features, which is supplied by the schema field description, not the tool description.

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