Delete Segment

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is disclosed. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating 'Delete', such as whether deletion is permanent, cascading, or requires special permissions. It provides no value beyond the structured annotations.

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 only five words and gets directly to the point with no filler or redundant phrases. It is appropriately minimal for a simple delete operation and every word earns its place.

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 deletion tool with destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the operation and the required parameter, and no output schema is expected. It does not explain consequences or return behavior, but the annotations cover the critical safety aspects.

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 single parameter segment_id is fully described in the schema with 'ID of the segment to delete', which is clear. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (an existing segment), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_segment or list_segments by naming the delete operation. However, it is very close to the tool name and title, adding only the qualifier 'existing'.

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?

Usage is implied: you use this tool when you need to remove an existing segment. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or mention of alternatives such as update_segment for modifying a segment. The context is clear enough for a simple delete operation, but no explicit routing is provided.

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