wetrack_delete_widget

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Delete' which implies a destructive action, but it does not explicitly state that the action is permanent, irreversible, or that it only affects the current user's view (though 'current user's dashboard' is mentioned). It also does not mention any permission requirements or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 extremely concise: a single sentence for the action and a brief Args block that adds the crucial source of the parameter. There is no filler or redundancy. The action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 a single parameter, the description covers the essential action and scope. It also includes the source of the widget_id. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, which is important for a destructive operation. This is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 describes widget_id as a string but gives no context. The description adds valuable meaning by specifying that the widget_id should come from wetrack_list_widgets, telling the agent where to obtain the correct ID. This goes beyond the schema's generic type definition and helps ensure correct invocation.

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 states a specific action ('Delete a report widget'), the resource ('report widget'), and the scope ('from the current user's dashboard'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wetrack_update_widget or wetrack_create_widget. The verb 'Delete' is unambiguous and the resource is precise.

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 the usage scenario (when you want to remove a widget) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does mention that widget_id comes from wetrack_list_widgets, which is a helpful pointer, but there is no discussion of prerequisites or exclusions. It provides a clear context but lacks explicit guidance on alternative selection.

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