delete_table_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: deletion is session-local form state that resets on a fresh form-open, so it must be verified in the same session, and it returns {base_button, target_button, accepted}. It doesn't cover auth/permission requirements or error behavior, but the mutation semantics and state lifetime are unusually well documented.

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 action and its mechanism are front-loaded, followed by a worked example, verification guidance, and the return shape. It is dense and peppered with domain-specific fixture/command jargon, but each clause carries real operational information rather than repetition.

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 niche form-automation mutation tool, the description covers the mechanism, the session-scoped state lifetime, how to verify success, and even restates the return object despite an output schema existing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across host, port, and capture, and the description never mentions any of them. Even though they are connection/infrastructure params with defaults, the description does not compensate for the complete absence of schema documentation, leaving their semantics entirely to inference.

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?

First sentence gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: "Delete the ACTIVE table row natively." It also names the prerequisite sibling (select_table_row) and contrasts its mechanism against copy_table_row, so an agent can place it precisely among the row-operation siblings.

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?

It states the prerequisite ("Select the target row first with select_table_row") and the correct verification path (assert_form_value on PF_TABLE_SNAPSHOT/PF_LAST_ACTION, or capture_screenshot). It gives clear when-to-use context but does not state any when-not-to-use or alternative deletion paths.

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