tickerbot_delete_universe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important side effects (webhooks referencing the universe will fail on next eval) and notes the ownership restriction. It does not explicitly state that deletion is irreversible, but 'delete' strongly implies that. Overall, it covers the key non-obvious behaviors.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary detail. It front-loads the primary action, then adds crucial exclusions and side effects. Every sentence earns its place, making it a model of concise, structured documentation.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all needed context: what it deletes, ownership scope, what cannot be deleted, and downstream impact. It references the cleanup action (webhooks) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it safely. The sibling list includes delete_webhook, so the guidance is actionable.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (id as 'Universe slug'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming example system universes (top_10/top_100) that are invalid targets, thereby enriching the understanding of what the id accepts beyond the schema.

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 one of the caller's universes'), specifies the resource (universe), and sets the scope (caller's own). It further distinguishes from related tools by noting system universes cannot be deleted, which makes the purpose unambiguous among siblings like update_universe and list_universes.

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 gives explicit constraints on when the tool should not be used (system universes) and provides a prerequisite (clean up webhooks first). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context with siblings like tickerbot_delete_webhook makes the necessary follow-up actionable. This is clear guidance, though it stops short of a full 'when-to-use vs alternatives' comparison.

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