delete_authors_by_id_image

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the DELETE method and path, and it warns that the body fields need to be discovered via GET or /schema. It does not go deeper into side effects like irreversibility, but the annotations carry most of that burden.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. It includes only the endpoint, argument roles, and a pointer to external schema details—no filler or redundant content.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, endpoint, and parameter discovery path, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not needed. It could be slightly stronger by naming the exact matching GET sibling (get_authors_by_id_image) and clarifying that body is optional, but the current level is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that id is a path parameter and body is a request payload whose expected fields must be looked up via the matching GET or /schema endpoint. This gives the agent an actionable strategy for resolving the opaque body parameter, even though it does not enumerate the body fields directly.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete an author image by author ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from delete_authors_by_id (deleting the author record) and create_authors_by_id_image (uploading/creating an image). The HTTP endpoint path further reinforces the exact operation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an author's image needs to be deleted. It also advises reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint before supplying a body, which is useful invocation guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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