delete_sourcePermanently delete a topic inbox with all its feeds, searches and collected content. Irreversible: the dedicated email address stops working too. Prefer update_source with is_active false when in doubt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | Id from list_sources |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying what gets destroyed ('all its feeds, searches and collected content') and that the email address stops working. It also warns about irreversibility. No contradiction with annotations. Score 4 because while it adds good context, it doesn't mention any rate limits or authorization requirements.
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?
Three sentences, zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: first states what it does and scope, second warns about what happens and irreversibility, third gives an alternative. No fluff.
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 zero output schema, the description doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., return value). However, for a destructive action with idempotentHint=true, the behavior is fairly expected—the resource is gone. The description adequately covers the deletion scope and side effect (email stops). A brief note on return status could push to 5.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the single parameter (source_id). The schema itself documents the parameter well, referencing 'list_sources' for where to get the ID.
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 what the tool does with a specific verb ('permanently delete') and resource ('topic inbox'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'update_source' by noting that this is the irreversible option. The title 'Delete a topic inbox' matches the description well.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when to prefer an alternative ('Prefer update_source with is_active false when in doubt'), which provides clear usage boundaries. The warning about irreversibility also guides the agent to use this tool only when certain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.
Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.
With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.