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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description does not state irreversibility, whether related blocks/keywords are cascaded or orphaned, required permissions, or error behavior for a missing/nonexistent ID.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive one-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description should warn about irreversibility and side effects on article blocks. Almost nothing beyond the bare action is conveyed.

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 is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including minLength 1, and the description's 'по идентификатору' only restates that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete an article) identified by its ID, which clearly separates it from create_article, get_article, list_articles and update_article_title in the sibling set. It is not tautological, though it does no explicit sibling differentiation beyond the name itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. clearing content via set_article_content, or removing blocks via modify_article_blocks). There is no mention of preconditions, confirmation, or consequences of deletion.

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