delete_theme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key boundary: referenced refined turns and memories are preserved. However, it does not mention permanence, side effects on lists/indices, or permission requirements, leaving gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the primary operation is front-loaded and the crucial side-effect clarification follows immediately.

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 one-parameter operation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the affected resource, and what is not affected. Only minor details like reversibility are absent.

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 already fully describes theme as 'Theme identifier to delete' (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional format, source, or usage detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 states the exact action (delete a theme association file) and explicitly scopes it: it does not delete refined turns or memories. This distinguishes it from the generic sibling delete and tells an agent precisely what resource is affected.

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 the tool is for removing just the theme association while preserving referenced turns/memories, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over the similarly named delete or tag_theme/trace_theme siblings. Usage context is inferable, not stated.

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