gap_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that this is a soft-delete ('Archive, not drop'), that the gap is retained with deleted=1, that it stops appearing in gap_list, and specifies the exact return payload or error. This is thorough and transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the action and intended use, the second explains the behavioral nuance, and the third states returns. No filler or redundancy; efficiently front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, retention semantics, and return values. It provides sufficient information for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 has no description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'gap by id'. It does not clarify what 'app_id' represents or how it scopes the deletion. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 opens with 'Soft-delete a single gap by id', clearly identifying the verb (soft-delete), resource (gap), and scope (single by id). It further clarifies the purpose ('clearing junk or test entries from the backlog') which differentiates it from other deletion or purge tools like gap_purge_topic or store_delete.

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 phrase 'for clearing junk or test entries from the backlog without disturbing its real gaps' provides clear when-to-use context. While it explains the soft-delete/archive behavior, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, though the distinction from a hard delete is implicit.

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