artscii

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the important restriction that built-in arts are protected, but omits whether deletion is permanent, what error occurs when attempting to delete built-in arts, or any permission/ownership requirements.

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 consists of exactly two high-value sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the core action, and the second provides the critical constraint. No redundant or filler text is present.

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 the tool's simplicity (single string parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the primary function and the key business rule regarding built-in arts. It lacks only minor details such as error behavior when attempting to delete protected arts.

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 100% with the 'id' parameter fully described as 'Art ID to delete'. The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the schema, but adds no additional semantic context such as ID format, where to obtain valid IDs, or validation rules beyond the schema itself.

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 the specific action 'Delete', the resource 'user-submitted ASCII art', and the identifier 'by ID'. The constraint 'Built-in arts cannot be deleted' effectively distinguishes this tool's scope from system-level management, clarifying it only operates on user submissions.

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 description provides an exclusion criterion ('Built-in arts cannot be deleted') indicating when the tool will fail, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings (e.g., when to delete vs. edit) or positive usage conditions beyond the implied 'to delete user art'.

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