openmausbot_delete_routine

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds the confirmation requirement ('exactly confirmed') and hints at a dry-run via 'Plan'. However, it does not explicitly state that dry_run defaults to true and that the tool may not actually delete unless dry_run is set to false. It adds some behavioral context but is vague and could mislead an agent into thinking it always deletes.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It front-loads nothing important and omits critical usage details. It is appropriately sized in length but not in content – being short is not the same as being well-structured.

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 destructive tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation flow, the consequences of deletion, or the dry_run behavior. An agent would lack enough context to safely invoke this tool without additional research.

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 67% – routine and confirm_name have descriptions, but dry_run has no description in the schema. The description does not clarify dry_run's role or the importance of setting it to false for actual deletion. It does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, and fails to compensate for the dry_run 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 'Plan or delete one exactly confirmed routine' is ambiguous – it introduces 'Plan' which is not the tool's core purpose (deletion) and is contradicted by the tool name and annotation title. It does mention 'delete' and 'routine' but the inclusion of 'Plan' muddies the intent. It does not differentiate from siblings like upsert_routine or set_routine_enabled.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for deleting routines specifically, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or situations where it should be avoided. The destructive nature is only hinted by annotations, not explained in the description.

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