utility_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly warns 'destructive and not undoable from the terminal,' which is critical safety information. It adds value beyond the schema, though it does not discuss potential cascading effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise, with a clear warning and a single argument explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning is front-loaded for safety. No filler or redundant content.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does, the target format, and the destructive nature. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool, though additional guidance about when to prefer it over specific delete tools would improve it.

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 schema only describes 'target' as a string with no description. The description adds useful semantics by stating the valid formats: 'Object path or {guid}.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and helps the agent construct proper inputs.

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 function: 'Delete any object from the project.' The verb 'delete' is specific, the resource is defined, and the phrase 'any object' distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific object types (e.g., event_delete, marker_delete).

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 does not explain when to use this generic delete tool versus the many specific delete tools available (event_delete, snapshot_delete, bank_delete). 'Delete any object' implies broad applicability, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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