Delete change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, whether restore_change can undo it, or what permissions are required. The word 'Delete' at least signals a destructive mutation, which is marginally more than a tautology.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the verb, with zero padding. Its brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, so it cannot score higher.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and sibling tools (trash_change, restore_change) that imply a recoverable-delete alternative, the definition omits everything an agent needs to choose and call it safely.

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% for the single parameter change_id, so the description would need to compensate and does not — it never mentions the identifier, its accepted formats (integer or numeric string per the anyOf), or where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a change'), so the core operation is unambiguous and distinguishable from create_change/update_change by name alone. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling trash_change (and restore_change), which strongly implies a soft-delete alternative — exactly the distinction an agent most needs here.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the trash_change alternative that presumably performs a recoverable deletion. The agent is left to infer entirely 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.