delete_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Delete' without stating that the operation is permanent, irreversible, or how errors are handled. It does not disclose side effects, confirmation behavior, or impact on related patterns.

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 extremely concise: one front-loaded sentence stating the core operation, followed by a minimal args list with no redundant content. Every element 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description provides enough to make the call (resource and param semantics). However, it lacks information about error behavior, irreversibility, and what happens after deletion; with no output schema, these gaps remain unaddressed.

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 only specifies an integer, but the description clarifies that it is a zero-based index and that it refers to a pattern piece. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage on the single parameter and is an essential detail for correct invocation.

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 states a clear action ('Delete') and target ('a pattern piece from the project'), identifying the operation and its scope. It distinguishes from other pattern-related siblings by the destructive verb and specific resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or on prerequisites such as obtaining a valid pattern_index from get_pattern_list. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.

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