telys_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond those flags: deletion is a tombstone rather than immediate physical removal, space is reclaimed later by telys_compact, repeated deletion is a no-op, and deletion fails for a nonexistent collection. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent predict side effects.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core semantics, deferred reclamation, use case, required parameters, idempotency, and error condition. The description is concise and front-loaded with the most important behavioral fact.

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, idempotent tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what gets deleted, when to use it, repeat behavior, failure mode, and the relationship to compaction. An agent can safely infer how to invoke it and what to expect.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description adds 'external id' semantics to ids, marks both collection and ids as required, and notes that collection must exist. It does not describe collection's meaning at length, but for two simple parameters this is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tombstone rows by external id', and states the observable effect ('no longer appear in queries or id listings'). It also distinguishes this tool from telys_compact by clarifying that space is reclaimed later by that sibling, so an agent can separate deletion from physical compaction.

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 phrase 'Use to forget memories' gives a clear intended use case, and the description states required inputs and failure condition. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but since there is no other delete tool among the siblings, no alternative routing is necessary.

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