delete_picklist_option

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — the tool is currently disabled — which is genuinely useful for an agent. However, it says nothing about the destructive permanence of removing an option, whether existing records holding that value are affected, or required permissions.

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 that front-loads the operation and the resource, with the critical disabled-status caveat attached rather than buried. Nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and disabled status but leaves the destructive consequences, permission requirements, and the reason for the disable unexplained. The schema covers parameter semantics well, so the gap is behavioral rather than structural.

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 100%, so every parameter (value, option_set_name, entity_logical_name, attribute_logical_name, solution_unique_name) is already documented, including the mutually exclusive pairing rules. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (an option from a Local or Global OptionSet), and the parenthetical scope note distinguishes it from add_picklist_option and update_picklist_option in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 '(currently disabled for safety)' note implicitly tells the agent not to rely on this tool, and the schema covers the Local-vs-Global mutually exclusive paths. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what to do instead, and no prerequisites (permissions, solution context) called out.

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