delete_stories

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it doesn't mention permanence, irreversibility, ownership constraints, or that multiple stories are deleted at once. It simply restates the operation without supplementing the structured annotations.

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 very brief—a single phrase with no filler. It is concise in length but under-specifies the tool's behavior. While it earns points for not being verbose, it sacrifices necessary information, making it less effective than a slightly longer description that clarifies important aspects.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with one parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the effect of the operation, whether deletion is permanent, or how the story_ids parameter works. The presence of an output schema and annotations does some work, but the description leaves the agent without critical operational context for a destructive action.

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%, meaning the description doesn't reference the story_ids parameter at all. The schema shows an array of integers, but the description doesn't explain what these IDs represent, whether multiple are accepted, or any format requirements. With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to the schema.

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 'Удалить свои истории' uses the specific verb 'удалить' (delete) and identifies the resource as one's own stories. This clearly distinguishes it from story-related siblings like send_story or get_stories_by_id, and the scope 'свои' (own) adds useful precision. However, it is minimal and doesn't mention batch deletion or other nuances, so it's clear but not fully detailed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Among many story-related siblings, there is no differentiation or context about when delete_stories is appropriate (e.g., when you need to remove your own stories by IDs). Usage is only implied by the name and surface description.

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