delete_glossary_entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds specific behavioral context: the entry is removed along with all its translations. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent of the full blast radius. It could also mention non-idempotency, but that is already captured by idempotentHint=false. It adds meaningful value beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action, with the requirement placed in a bullet. No wasteful words; every sentence earns its place. The structure is efficient and easily parsed.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential effect (deletes translations) and the required input. It does not mention return values or error handling, but that is common for tools with no output schema and is not a critical gap given the simplicity. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema description for sourceText is 100% covered ('Source term of the glossary entry to delete'). The tool description reiterates the requirement but adds no new parameter semantics, such as format, constraints, or examples. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('delete') and the resource ('glossary entry'), and adds the critical effect that all translations are removed. The scope is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other delete tools (e.g., delete_tag, delete_language) by naming the specific resource type.

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 description implies usage ('provide sourceText') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a destructive operation, it could caution about irreversibility, but that's covered by the destructiveHint annotation. It is minimally functional but lacks proactive routing.

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