bar_delete_cocktail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to shelves, collections, or flavor profiles, or what authorization is required. 'Delete' implies destruction but nothing about consequences is disclosed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate compression.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive one-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description omits irreversibility, side effects on related entities, and error cases (unknown ID/slug), leaving gaps an agent would need to call it safely.

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% and the single parameter is titled only 'Id' with no description. The description partially compensates by stating the identifier may be an ID or a slug, which is real information the schema omits. Still, format/validation specifics are left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (cocktail) with the identifier form, so the agent can distinguish it from bar_delete_ingredient and the update/create siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of when a delete is preferable to bar_update_cocktail or to removing items from collections/shelf. The agent gets no routing help beyond the resource name.

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