delete_remote_draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like permissions required, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on related data), or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Delete a remote draft from Firebase by ID') with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's destructive nature (deletion), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, auth needs), error responses, or what happens post-deletion. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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, with the 'draftId' parameter clearly documented as 'Draft ID to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 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 the specific action ('Delete'), resource ('a remote draft from Firebase'), and identifier ('by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_draft' (which likely handles local drafts) and 'list_remote_drafts' (which lists rather than deletes). It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'delete_draft' (for local drafts) or 'clear_level' (which might remove entire levels). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing remote draft) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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