knowledge_base_delete_trained_urls_for_knowledge_base

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Delete' adds no new behavioral information. The description does not disclose any additional side effects, permanence of deletion, or whether the operation is reversible. With annotations present, the bar for adding context is lower, but this description fails to add any context beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 under-specified, consisting of only three words. While concise, it omits critical context and is more of a minimal placeholder than a properly sized description. It lacks any structure or front-loading of key information, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the operation.

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 operation with no output schema, the description should explain the effect, required inputs, and any relevant dependencies. It does not mention that trained URL IDs come from a specific endpoint, how the knowledge base ID is used, or what the operation returns. The schema provides some context but the description leaves significant gaps, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no information about the parameters. According to the calibration rule, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate even without param details in the description.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('trained pages'), which accurately reflects the tool's function. It is not a tautology because it uses 'trained pages' instead of repeating the tool name. However, it does not explicitly mention the knowledge base scope or differentiate from sibling tools like knowledge_base_delete_knowledge_base, though the tool name itself provides some differentiation.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and required parameters. This is a significant gap since a caller needs to know this is for removing specific trained URLs from a knowledge base, not for other deletion operations.

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