karea_delete_requisite

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

The description highlights irreversibility and permanence, which is valuable for a destructive action. However, it lacks details on error conditions, authentication needs, or side effects. Being the sole source (no annotations), it carries the full burden but is not exhaustive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key constraint (irreversibility). No wasted words.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral trait (irreversibility) and scope (closing requisite). It could mention that the requisite ID comes from karea_view_task, but the schema already notes that. Reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by ID' and 'from a task', which is already implied. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool deletes a closing requisite permanently by ID. It distinguishes from other requisite tools (add, toggle) by being a delete operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete siblings.

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?

Implied usage when needing to permanently delete a requisite, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor comparison with alternatives like toggle_requisite.

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