delete_sync

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 states the tool deletes a sync, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting related data), or returns confirmation details. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the parameter documentation could be integrated more seamlessly. There's no wasted text, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 complexity of a destructive delete operation, no annotations, and an output schema that exists but isn't described, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like confirmation requirements, error handling, or return values, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description adds minimal semantics for the single parameter 'id' by stating it's 'The sync ID to delete', which clarifies its role. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema referenced, it doesn't explain where to obtain the ID or what format it expects. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structure, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a sync from Polytomic'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_bulk_sync' or 'delete_model', which would require specifying what distinguishes a 'sync' from other deletable entities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a sync ID from 'get_sync' or 'list_syncs'), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens post-deletion. With multiple delete tools in the sibling list, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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