grocy_objects_delete

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the dry-run behavior via omitting confirm, but it does not explain irreversibility, cascade effects, authorization requirements, or what the dry-run preview returns; with annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. It states purpose, endpoint, and the key confirmation/dry-run behavior immediately.

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 schemas, annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what it deletes, the endpoint shape, and how to request a dry-run. It is slightly thin on destructive-operation consequences and permissions, but annotations already signal destructiveness.

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%, and the schema fully documents entity, object_id, and confirm, including that confirm must be boolean true and that omitting it triggers a dry-run. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one Grocy object,' and includes the exact DELETE endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as grocy_objects_create, grocy_objects_update, grocy_objects_get, and grocy_objects_list.

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 gives clear operational guidance for the dry-run: 'Omit confirm for a dry-run.' The deletion use case is obvious, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid deletion or mention related alternatives; however, there is no sibling delete tool for arbitrary Grocy objects.

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