sch_delete_wire

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it states there is no undo call, that the whole document is snapshotted to a local backup repo first, and that the response carries a backup SHA for recovery. This is exactly the recovery/safety context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the irreversibility warning and recovery path. No wasted words.

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, non-idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining gaps: irreversibility, automatic backup, and recovery handle. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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%, so the schema already documents ids, document (including auto-switch behavior), and instance_id. The description adds only 'by their primitive IDs' and the response SHA, which is baseline-level value over structured fields.

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 (Delete) and resource (wires) plus the addressing mechanism (primitive IDs) and cardinality (one or more). An agent can distinguish this from sch_modify_wire and sch_create_wire 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?

The phrase 'by their primitive IDs' implies IDs must be obtained first (e.g. via sch_get_all_wires), but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing (e.g. modify vs delete) is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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