knowledge_base_delete

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

The annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. However, the description does not add any extra behavioral context such as irreversibility, potential cascade effects, or prerequisite existence of the FAQ. Since the annotations carry the burden, the description adds little beyond restating the action, keeping this at a neutral score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any fluff. It is efficient and communicates the essential action clearly. It could arguably be slightly longer to include usage guidance, but that is a content concern, not a structural one; the structure is appropriate.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the related knowledge_base_delete_knowledge_base sibling, which could lead to misuse. The schema clarifies the ID is a FAQ ID, but the description could mention that it deletes only the FAQ, not the whole knowledge base, to prevent errors.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'faq ID as string'. The description does not add any additional meaning about where to obtain this ID or its format. Given the full schema coverage, no compensation is required, so 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 states a clear action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('existing knowledge base FAQ'), which distinguishes it from sibling tool knowledge_base_delete_knowledge_base that would delete the entire knowledge base. The verb-resource pairing is explicit and unambiguous, so an agent can infer this targets a FAQ entry within a knowledge base.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly mention that deletion of the entire knowledge base should use knowledge_base_delete_knowledge_base, nor does it list any preconditions or exclusions. Given the generic tool name 'knowledge_base_delete', an agent might confuse it with deleting the whole knowledge base, and the description does not clarify this distinction.

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