delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses that this is a destructive operation ('remove a single resource'), explains conditional behavior ('deleting the resource only if it matches the given criteria'), mentions server validation ('must match an existing resource instance'), and describes the return type ('FHIR OperationOutcome'). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific usage scenarios and parameter interactions. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the structure logically progresses from general to specific details.

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 complex destructive operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well. It explains the tool's behavior, parameter interactions, and return type. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or potential side effects, which would be helpful given the destructive nature.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'If you include searchParam, the server will perform a conditional delete'), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute a FHIR `delete` interaction on a specific resource instance.' It specifies the verb ('delete'), resource ('FHIR resource'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'create', 'read', 'update', and 'search' by focusing on removal operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'when you need to remove a single resource identified by its logical ID or optionally filtered by search parameters.' It explains conditional deletion and operation execution scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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