vw2d_delete

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds genuinely new context, that the operation is restorable via vw_revert_last, but says nothing about cascading effects, whether restorability holds after other edits, or failure behavior.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the recovery hint; every clause carries information. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations gaps and no parameter documentation, the description needs to carry more weight. The restore hint is valuable, but an agent still cannot tell which objects are addressable by UUID or what state remains after deletion.

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% and the description never mentions the sole parameter. It does not clarify that "objects" means the uuids array or where those UUIDs come from (e.g. vw2d_read, vw_find_objects), leaving an undocumented required array.

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 objects") so the agent immediately knows the effect. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, but none of the siblings appear to be an alternative delete path, so ambiguity is low.

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 parenthetical points to vw_revert_last as the recovery path, which implies this is the tool to use when a deletion may need undoing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, prerequisites, or what happens if the objects have dependents.

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