PyNet Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature via 'Permanently,' but omits critical behavioral details like cascade effects, impact on active instances (relevant given list_active_instances sibling), or recovery possibilities.

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 single sentence is efficiently structured and front-loaded, but the extreme brevity constitutes under-specification for a destructive two-parameter operation. Every word earns its place, yet more sentences are needed.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive operation with undocumented parameters. While an output schema exists (reducing the need for return value description), the combination of zero schema coverage, missing annotations, and unspecified parameter semantics leaves critical gaps.

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% and the description fails to compensate. It mentions neither 'pid' (process ID?) nor 'module_id', nor explains their relationship to the module being deleted or format expectations.

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 the action (deletes) and resource (module) with permanence noted, but 'module' is generic and lacks domain context (pynet). It fails to distinguish from sibling tool delete_script_button or clarify the relationship to create_pynet_module.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_script_button, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the module must be inactive) or warnings about dependencies.

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