delete_font_variant

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 'Delete' which implies a destructive action, but it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens if the variant is in use. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately identifies the action and object. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler information.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate by providing usage context and behavioral caveats. It omits any mention of prerequisites, errors, or outcomes, and the sibling list includes similar delete/update font tools, making the description insufficient for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 already documents both parameters (teamId and variantId) with 100% coverage, including 'Font variant ID to delete' for variantId. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and a specific resource 'specific font variant' with illustrative examples (Bold, Italic). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_font and update_font by clearly scoping the operation to a variant.

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 the tool but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. Sibling tools like delete_font and update_font could be confused with this operation, and the description does not address this potential ambiguity.

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