delete_evaluator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Permanently delete' and 'This action cannot be undone,' clearly conveying irreversibility. It does not mention potential cascading effects on related resources, but for a straightforward delete tool, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Permanently delete an evaluator') and immediately follows with the critical consequence ('This action cannot be undone'). Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the primary concern of irreversibility. It lacks details about return values, success/failure behavior, or effects on associated versions, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter evaluator_id, with a clear description: 'The unique identifier of the evaluator to delete.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Permanently delete an evaluator.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('evaluator'), and 'permanently' adds scope. This distinguishes it from sibling evaluator operations like create_evaluator, update_evaluator, and get_evaluator.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The destructive verb implies it is for removing an evaluator, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when deletion is appropriate. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description.

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