yd_metrika_counter_delete

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

The description only provides the verb 'Delete' without any behavioral traits beyond that. It does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, what dependencies exist, or any side effects. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but fails to add meaningful context.

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 extremely concise (four words) with no wasted text. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key context (e.g., 'Yandex Metrika') without losing efficiency.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description should at least mention that deletion is permanent or any prerequisites. It lacks completeness for a deletion operation.

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 input schema describes the only parameter (counter_id) as 'Counter ID', which is already clear. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score 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 'Metrika counter', which is distinctive among sibling tools like create, get, and update. However, it does not specify that it refers to Yandex Metrika, which could be ambiguous for users unfamiliar with the naming convention.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yd_metrika_counter_update or other deletion tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for deletion.

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