delete_category

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

The description reveals that the deletion is a soft-delete and that annotations are retained, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, additional details (e.g., whether the category becomes hidden or marked as deleted, whether it still appears in list queries, or any permissions needed) would improve transparency. No contradiction exists since annotations are absent.

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 is a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and an important detail (historical annotations retained). It is front-loaded with the 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 two-parameter delete tool with a clear schema and output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior (soft-delete, annotation retention). The output schema likely provides return value shape, so the description doesn't need to. Minor gaps exist around side effects (e.g., impact on linked items), but overall appropriate for the complexity.

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 parameter names and descriptions are self-explanatory ('dataset_id' and 'category_id'). The description adds the context of 'soft-delete' which implies the category still exists in the system, but does not elaborate on the parameter values beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('soft-delete') and the resource ('category'), and also mentions a key behavior ('retain historical annotations'). It distinguishes from a hard delete or a permanent removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delete_dataset or delete_bbox_annotation.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., restore_category, edit_category). It lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., dataset must exist) or conditions that make soft-deletion appropriate.

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