bulc_delete_room

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a destructive write operation. The description adds context by specifying what gets destroyed ('a room') and provides the prerequisite for obtaining the ID, which helps the agent understand the operation's impact and preparation needed. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like cascading deletions or confirmation requirements.

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 consists of two concise sentences that are perfectly front-loaded: the first states the core action, the second provides essential usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for agent comprehension.

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 destructive deletion tool with good annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides adequate context about what's being deleted and how to obtain the required parameter. However, without an output schema, it doesn't indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter ('Room ID to delete'). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that IDs come from 'bulc_list_rooms', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a room by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bulc_delete_furniture' or 'bulc_delete_wall' by specifying the target resource type. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides when to use this tool ('Delete a room by its ID') and includes a clear prerequisite ('Get room IDs from bulc_list_rooms'), which is an explicit alternative tool for obtaining the required parameter. This gives the agent complete guidance on usage context and dependencies.

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