delete_authors_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds little beyond restating the deletion and providing the HTTP endpoint. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., cascading deletes) or permissions. With annotations covering the core behavior, the description adds minimal value.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence, the HTTP route, and two parameter explanations with a pointer for the body. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and logically structured.

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 delete operation, the description covers the essential call steps: the endpoint and how to determine body fields. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return format is not the description's burden. Minor gaps: no mention of irreversible action or implications, but annotations already communicate destructiveness. Overall sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains id as a path parameter and body as a request payload, and explicitly advises reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn expected fields. This gives actionable guidance beyond the bare schema types.

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 a clear action ('Delete an author by ID') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_authors_by_id_image by targeting the author entity itself. The HTTP method and path reinforce the scope without ambiguity.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where a different delete tool would be preferred, nor exclusions (e.g., when an author has related entities). The description simply states the action without contextual direction.

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