datatype-delete

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the namespace prefix syntax and confirms the deletion action. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description reinforces the destructive nature and provides operational details not covered by structured fields.

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?

Extremely concise with zero wasted words. Two sentences cover purpose, action, parameter meaning, and syntax details. The hash header provides clear structure, and every element serves a specific informational purpose.

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 operation with no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, parameter semantics, and namespace syntax. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, confirmation requirements, or what happens to dependent objects, which would be helpful given the destructive nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining what 'qualifiedName' represents (datatype name with optional namespace prefix separated by slash). It provides complete semantic understanding of the single parameter beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Deletes') and resource ('datatype with the given name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like datatype-update. It provides precise scope by mentioning namespace prefixing with slash syntax, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 context through the namespace prefix explanation, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like datatype-update or when deletion is appropriate. It provides some operational guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not directives or named alternatives.

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