modx_delete_provider

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost none: it says "Delete" but not whether the operation is permanent, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what happens to packages/namespaces tied to the provider. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from omitting needed detail rather than from disciplined editing.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition provides essentially nothing beyond the name. An agent lacks the safety profile, id provenance, and failure/constraint information needed to invoke it confidently.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as a bare number named "id". The description restates that an id is needed but adds no meaning: no indication of whether this is the provider's numeric primary key, how to obtain it (e.g., via modx_list_providers), or what errors occur on an unknown id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a transport provider") with the id as the selector, which clearly distinguishes it from modx_create_provider, modx_update_provider, and modx_list_providers. It does not, however, contrast itself with deletion siblings in other domains or note that it is the inverse of create_provider.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the irreversible removal path versus update_provider. Nothing addresses whether dependent namespaces or packages referencing the provider block deletion.

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