delete_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Deletes an attribute' without mentioning irreversibility, cascading effects, permissions required, or any side effects. For a delete operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical context that the agent needs, making it an example of under-specification rather than impactful brevity.

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 tool's complexity (3 required parameters, including a nested source object) and no output schema, the description is deeply inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion, whether attributes can be deleted from both local files and server ERDs, or any dependencies. The agent would be left guessing about the operation's effects.

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 only 33% (only 'source' has a description; entityId and attributeId are undocumented). The description 'Deletes an attribute' adds no parameter semantics, failing to clarify the roles of entityId and attributeId. There is no compensation for the schema gaps.

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 'Deletes an attribute' clearly states the verb and resource, making it easy to identify the tool's primary action. It differentiates from sibling tools like delete_entity and delete_relationship by specifying 'attribute'. However, it lacks any mention of the attribute's context (e.g., entity, ERD) that the schema requires, so it's not a full 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_entity or upsert_attribute. It neither states the intended use case nor mentions any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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