lib_device_delete

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that the operation is irreversible, that no undo and no backup snapshot exist because library assets are not documents, and that the return value is a boolean success flag.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the destructive consequences, then the mitigation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: irreversibility, absence of backups, the scope boundary versus symbol/footprint, and the return type. Nothing material is missing.

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?

All three parameters are already documented at 100% schema coverage, and the description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning for deviceUuid/libraryUuid/instance_id. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 library device') and immediately scopes it by clarifying it does NOT delete the referenced symbol/footprint, which distinguishes it from lib_symbol_delete and lib_device_modify without opening any 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?

Gives a concrete precondition — record the device with lib_get_device first if a restore may be needed — and the symbol/footprint note implicitly routes the agent to the sibling delete for those asset types. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives comparison, so not a 5.

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