Delete a clause

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 discloses one valuable non-obvious trait — 'A deleted starter clause is not re-seeded on the next call' — which tells the agent the deletion is persistent even for starter clauses. However, for a destructive operation it does not disclose cascading effects on contracts assembled from the clause, idempotence when the id does not exist, or reversibility, leaving significant behavioral 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary action, the second adds a crucial behavioral caveat about starter clauses. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 tool — one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema — the description covers purpose and the key persistence behavior. Minor gaps remain: behavior when the id or title does not match any clause, and whether deleting a clause impacts contracts that reference it. These are moderate but not blocking for a single-parameter delete operation.

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 description coverage is 100% — the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Clause id or exact title' — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, such as how to resolve an exact title or what happens when the id is not found. The schema carries the full weight, and the description does not compensate beyond it.

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 verb and resource: 'Remove a clause from the library.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings — clause_add, clause_get, clause_update, clause_list, clause_search — which perform different operations. The title and description align, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: an agent can infer this tool is for removing a clause. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives such as clause_update for editing instead of deleting or clause_search for locating the clause first. The re-seeding caveat is more behavioral context than routing guidance.

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