Delete fan profile

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the refusal condition, that the error lists the exact dependents, and precisely what force does (channels fall back to default, modes drop the profile). This is exactly the consequence-level detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the base action and then the conditional behavior; every clause carries information. It is slightly compressed into a single run-on structure that could be split for scanning, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, failure modes, and side effects. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible and what a successful response contains, which are the remaining gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to 'force' beyond the schema's terse 'Delete even if in use' by spelling out the downstream fallback effects. 'profile' is passed through unchanged with no added detail on uid vs name resolution.

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 profile') and immediately scopes it against the other delete_* siblings by naming what a profile is entangled with (channels, Mix/Overlay profiles, modes). An agent can tell this apart from delete_mode or update_profile without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the two operating contexts clearly: default behavior refuses when the profile is referenced, and force=true proceeds with defined fallbacks. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. update_profile or reassigning channels first), so a 5 is not warranted, but the when-to-use-force decision is fully specified.

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