delete_sticker_set

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds a key behavioral nuance: the sticker set must have been created by the bot, which is a prerequisite not captured by the annotations. It does not describe irreversibility or error handling, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is brief but sufficient to convey the primary purpose. However, it omits details about return values, behavior when the sticker set does not exist, or consequences beyond deletion. Given the destructive nature and minimal schema, a bit more context would be helpful, but the current state is not severely inadequate.

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 schema has zero coverage (0%) and the only parameter is 'name' with no description. The tool description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., the name of the sticker set to delete), leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. This is a significant gap since the description should compensate for the lack of schema-level details.

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 sticker set'), with a qualifier ('created by the bot') that distinguishes it from deleting stickers within a set (delete_sticker_from_set) or deleting chat sticker sets (delete_chat_sticker_set). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that makes the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool: to delete a sticker set that the bot created. This helps differentiate from sibling tools that handle individual stickers or other sticker-related operations, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for a simple delete operation.

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