nexo_learning_delete

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

The description implies a destructive action ('delete') but does not disclose permanence, cascading effects, required permissions, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the basic purpose, but it lacks any additional context or structure. It is minimal but not informative.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could benefit from behavioral details like irreversibility or confirmation requirements.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing the parameter 'id' with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'delete', so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a learning entry', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like nexo_learning_update or nexo_learning_apply_retroactively, which also modify learning entries.

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, such as nexo_learning_update for modifying or nexo_learning_apply_retroactively for retroactive application. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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