Delete Thing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'permanently' discloses irreversibility, but there is no mention of side effects, permissions, or return behavior. This is only partial transparency for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Delete a thing permanently.' It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it an efficient and well-structured specification.

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 simple delete operation with a fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It lacks behavioral details like the possibility of cascading deletes, undo options, or permission requirements, which would be important for an agent to fully understand the operation's consequences.

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 already provides complete coverage of the single parameter 'thing_id' with its type and description. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a thing') with the adverb 'permanently,' clearly distinguishing this tool from update_thing or change_thing_state. It unambiguously states the operation's scope.

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 is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_thing or change_thing_state. The description does not include exclusions, prerequisites, or context for decision-making.

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