delete-todo

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

The destructiveHint annotation already communicates that this is a destructive operation. The description adds the HTTP method and auth scope but no extra behavioral detail such as irreversibility or effects on related data. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers the action, endpoint, and permission scope with zero filler. Every word contributes to the agent's ability to select and invoke the tool.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: one required parameter, no output schema, and a destructive annotation already present. The endpoint, scope, and schema are sufficient for correct invocation. Minor additions such as behavior for missing IDs would improve completeness but are not essential.

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 sole parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema with type, bounds, and description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It adds no meaningful detail beyond the endpoint's {id}, but none is required.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('to-do'), the REST endpoint, and the required scope. This clearly distinguishes delete-todo from sibling tools like update-todo or get-todo by both operation and resource.

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 intended use is immediately obvious from the verb and resource, and the scope requirement ('todos:write') gives operational context. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but for a simple delete operation this level of guidance is sufficient.

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