qr-maker

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the action is permanent ('cannot be undone'), destructive (deletes link and all associated data), and includes a safety warning about alternatives. This covers critical behavioral aspects like irreversibility and scope of deletion.

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 front-loaded with the core action and impact in the first sentence, followed by a critical warning and alternative suggestion in the second. Every sentence adds essential value—no wasted words—making it highly efficient and well-structured for agent comprehension.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, and behavioral risks. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., invalid link_id handling) or response format, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'link_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a short link and all its associated data'), with explicit details about what gets removed (QR targets, analytics, landing pages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_link' by emphasizing the irreversible nature of deletion versus disabling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for permanent deletion) and when not to use it, by recommending an alternative ('Consider using update_link with status "disabled" instead'). This directly addresses usage context versus sibling tools, helping the agent choose appropriately.

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