delete_profile_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (tombstone/delete), the return format ({ok: True} or structured error), and a specific error condition (403). However, it does not address idempotency, reversibility, or authorization requirements, leaving gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loading the main action and then providing key error context. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 simplicity (single row deletion with a precondition), the description covers the action, return type, and critical error condition. It does not elaborate on the full implications of tombstoning, but with an output schema available, return values need not be fully described.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It implicitly ties 'version' to the card-version row but does not describe 'reason' at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'tombstone' and identifies the exact resource: 'a single card-version row in the operator's history.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling like 'delete_profile' which targets the entire profile.

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 explains a key precondition: the call is rejected if the persistence opt-in includes 'card_history', and directs to 'disable_persistence' first. This provides clear usage guidance, though it does not explicitly compare against other history-related tools.

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