delete_lab_result

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that date-scoped deletes are irreversible, can remove many rows at once, and require user confirmation. It also includes the strong guardrail 'Never guess a selector.' These behaviors are not inferable from readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true alone, so the description adds substantial value.

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 well-structured with a bolded selector heading and bullet-like separators. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the action, stating when to use it, warning about irreversibility, and explaining parameter combinations. The length is appropriate for the destructive and ambiguous nature of the operation.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and four optional parameters with complex interactions, the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to use it, how to choose selectors, what is irreversible, and when to confirm with the user. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. No critical context is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the parameters by explaining the selector hierarchy: id deletes one row, date deletes the whole draw, and date+marker resolves to one row with error behavior if multiple markers match. It also clarifies that panel_name narrows date-based selectors and that marker is ignored when id is present—none of which the schema alone conveys as clearly.

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 'Permanently delete one or more lab results,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the exact use case ('when the user explicitly asks to remove or delete a logged lab result') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on deletion rather than update or logging.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool and provides detailed selection guidelines among id, date, and date+marker. It does not explicitly name alternatives like update_lab_result for non-destructive corrections, but the context is clear enough that an agent should not confuse this with other lab-related tools.

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