delete_hotspot_operator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the deleted resource but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to other entities, what permissions are required, or what the response indicates. The parameter format hints add context, but they are not behavioral transparency.

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 two compact sentences, with the action front-loaded and parameter clarifications neatly separated. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is an appropriate size for a simple three-parameter delete tool.

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 operation with three string parameters and an output schema present, the description gives enough parameter semantics to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the tricky host composite ID format and clarifies site and operator_id. The absence of behavioral and usage context is covered by other dimensions, but the basic invocation details are sufficiently 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does. It explains that host accepts a console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format, and that site accepts a name or ID. operator_id is defined only as 'hotspot operator ID,' which is nearly tautological, but the host composite format is genuinely useful 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 opens with the specific verb and resource: 'Delete a hotspot operator by ID.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like update_hotspot_operator, create_hotspot_operator, and list_hotspot_operators. The resource and action are unmistakable.

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 about when to choose this tool over related alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. It implies usage through the word 'Delete' but fails to mention exclusions, such as whether the operator must exist or what happens on failure. This is not enough to route an agent confidently among the many delete tools in the sibling list.

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