gap_delete

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

Despite destructiveHint=true, the description clarifies that this is a soft-delete/archive operation: the gap is retained with deleted=1 and only stops appearing in gap_list. It also discloses the return payload and the not_found error condition, adding important behavior beyond the annotations.

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 tight and front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place: operation, purpose, behavioral effect, and return contract. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, soft-delete semantics, visibility change, return format, and error behavior. The only notable gap is the undocumented app_id parameter, which prevents it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only implies that gap_id identifies the gap and says nothing about app_id, its role, format, or how the two interact. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not fully document them.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Soft-delete a single gap by id," which clearly identifies the operation and its target. It further distinguishes this from sibling gap tools by explicitly scoping it to "clearing junk or test entries from the backlog without disturbing its real gaps."

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 states the intended use case: clearing junk or test entries without affecting real gaps. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the "without disturbing its real gaps" phrasing gives meaningful context for when this softer deletion is appropriate.

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