wallabag_delete_annotation

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. For a destructive operation it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or whether deletion is soft or hard. Only the bare fact of deletion is conveyed.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, the description omits the behavioral details an agent needs (irreversibility, permissions, error behavior), leaving it incomplete for the operation's risk profile.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description correctly relies on structured data. It adds no extra meaning (e.g. where the id comes from or whether invalid ids error), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('wallabag annotation'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as wallabag_list_annotations or wallabag_create_annotation beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 or how to obtain a valid annotation_id (e.g. via wallabag_list_annotations). The agent must infer all of this from the sibling list.

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