lib_symbol_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material context the annotations cannot: no undo, no backup snapshot is taken, and the reason (library assets are not documents). It also states the return shape (boolean success), which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 irreversible consequence and followed by the mitigating action and return type. No filler; every sentence changes agent behavior.

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 this is complete: it covers irreversibility, the absence of backups, the recovery workflow, and the boolean return value. Nothing an agent needs before calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the non-obvious instance_id auto-selection rule and the list_instances referral, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is the correct baseline when the schema already does this work.

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 first sentence states a precise verb+resource ('Delete a library symbol') and the scope is unambiguous against siblings like lib_symbol_get and lib_device_delete. An agent can distinguish it immediately without opening the 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?

It names the safety pre-step and the alternative tool explicitly: 'Fetch and save the symbol source with lib_symbol_get first if you may need to restore it.' That routes the agent to the right sibling under a stated condition rather than leaving it to inference.

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