delete_me_progress_by_id

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the fact that it deletes is redundant. The description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. The only extra context is the body payload hint, which is more about parameter handling than tool behavior.

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, with no filler. It leads with the purpose, then lists the parameters with brief, actionable notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

Given that the output schema exists, the response format is covered. The description does not explain the id parameter's meaning (though inferable from the tool name) or any prerequisites like fetching the progress ID first. For a destructive, idempotent operation, the description is adequate but lacks explicit usage guidance and edge-case behavior. It is complete enough for a simple delete but could benefit from a sentence on how to find the correct id.

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 identifies 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as a request payload, but it does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., the progress entry ID) or give any concrete field examples. The pointer to 'read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint' is useful for understanding the body structure, but it does not provide direct semantic meaning for the parameters themselves.

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') and resource ('me progress'), which is sufficient to distinguish it from other delete tools. It is not a tautology, and the resource is specific. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'me progress' refers to, which is inferable from the tool name and context but not explicitly stated.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_me_progress or patch_me_progress_*. The description only restates the action and parameter list, with no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to fetch the ID first) or exclusions. The body hint about reading the GET/schema endpoint is the only usage-related instruction, but it applies to parameter construction, not tool selection.

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