Delete My Tool

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the lower bar applies, yet the description still adds real value: "No Undo" confirms irreversibility and the "two-step AI app token handshake" plus confirmation challenge disclose an auth/protocol requirement an agent must plan for. It stops short of saying what state is left behind or what the token challenge returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning, with no wasted wording. The brevity is only a problem where it creates ambiguity about the deletion target, not where it pads.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a destructive two-parameter tool the description should at minimum identify what object the `name` refers to and how the confirmation handshake is sequenced. The mismatch between "revisions" and a tool-deletion name leaves the agent unable to invoke this confidently.

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 explains the required `name` parameter or its regex pattern, which is the primary identifier for the operation. It only gestures at `confirm_token` via "two-step token handshake," without stating the token's format, source, or that it is optional and defaults to null.

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 says it deletes "all revisions," but the tool name is revit_delete_tool and its siblings (revit_save_tool, revit_list_tools, revit_get_tool) strongly imply it removes a saved tool definition, not model revisions. An agent cannot tell which resource is actually destroyed, and the title "Delete My Tool" is tautological filler.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling revit_delete, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or what happens if the tool is in use. The only procedural hint is the phrase "after a first confirmation challenge," which describes a step but not when the tool is appropriate.

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