delete_libraries_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Delete' is consistent with them. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permanence, cascading effects, or auth requirements, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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: purpose, HTTP verb/path, then arguments. Every section earns its place, and the body field note is useful rather than filler.

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 two-parameter delete operation with an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotence, the description is nearly complete. It could mention permanence or required auth, but the clear target and the instruction for discovering body fields make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that id is a path parameter and explains that body is a request payload whose expected fields should be discovered via the matching GET or /schema endpoint. This gives an agent a concrete way to resolve the body's shape despite the empty schema descriptions.

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 a single library by ID on server.' It clearly identifies the target as the library itself, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like delete_libraries_by_id_issues and delete_libraries_by_id_narrators_by_narrator_id.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as patch_libraries_by_id or the more specific delete_libraries_by_id_issues. The description simply restates the DELETE operation and leaves usage decisions to inference from the tool name.

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