Delete Version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the need for an enterprise write gate, a destructive gate, exact version-name confirmation, and a post-deletion verification step. It stops short of detailing failure modes or permissions depth.

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 one tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the key constraints with no filler. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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 destructive version-deletion tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, gating requirements, exact naming, and verification. The main gap is the lack of explanation for workspace_path, but the core behavioral requirements are present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It meaningfully clarifies that version_name must be exact and that confirm_version_name is an exact echo, but it says nothing about workspace_path, leaving one required parameter semantically unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource in Chinese: delete an exactly named version and re-check its disappearance. It is clear without needing the schema, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling version tools such as create_version, change_version, or list_versions.

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?

It states prerequisites (enterprise write gate, destructive gate, exact version-name echo) and a post-condition check, which implies usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like change_version or reconcile_versions, nor does it give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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