delete_font

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals a key side effect: deleting the font also removes all variants. This is important for an agent to know. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if the font is in use, but the main destructive behavior is covered.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and adds a parenthetical clarifying side effect. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the most critical side effect. It could mention permanence or require a confirmation, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, this is adequately 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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both fontId and teamId. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete a custom font') and adds a critical scoping clarification ('removes all variants'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like delete_font_variant and update_font.

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 implies when to use this tool: to delete an entire custom font, not just a variant. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative delete_font_variant or state when not to use it, so it misses the 'when-not' dimension.

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