delete_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively discloses cascade-tombstone behavior, the 403 error with code persistence_opt_in, the annotation of the local file with tombstoned_at and tombstoned_reason, and the effect on the 'orient' tool's directory.published flag.

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 well-structured with a clear main statement followed by details. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 presence of an output schema (not detailed here but indicated), the description covers behavior, side effects, error conditions, and comparison. The only missing piece is the 'reason' parameter documentation, which prevents a perfect score.

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 has one optional parameter 'reason', but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to this parameter. This is a significant gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Cascade-tombstone every history row for the operator's profile.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'delete_profile_history' by specifying it performs a cascade-tombstone and references persistence-opt-in semantics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it mentions the persistence-opt-in error behavior, explains that the local cached card remains but is annotated, and suggests manual removal for a fully-clean slate. It also references 'delete_profile_history' for comparison.

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