Delete a tool access profile entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive and idempotent. The description adds the HTTP method and auth class but no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the deletion is permanent, cascading effects). This is adequate given the annotations, but the description itself provides minimal extra value.

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 short (two sentences) with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It lacks important context such as what happens on success or failure. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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 is destructive, the description should provide more context about the impact (e.g., what the entry is, what it affects). The output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description should explain the action's effect. Currently, it only restates the purpose and endpoint, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 50% coverage; only the optional 'body' parameter has a description. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving the required 'path.entryId' undocumented. The agent must infer that 'entryId' identifies the entry to delete, but no format or constraints are given.

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 tool name and title clearly state deletion of a tool access profile entry, and the description reinforces this with the HTTP DELETE method and resource path. Among siblings, there is a distinct update tool (pc_patch_tool_profile_entries_by_entry_id), so the purpose is unique and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete versus patch an entry. There are no prerequisites, side effects, or conditions mentioned. The only additional context is the auth class 'board', which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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