delete_concept

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the destructive nature and the specific side effect of removing REFERENCES relationships. However, it does not mention whether other links (e.g., tags) are affected or if the operation is irreversible. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes value. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 the delete action and absence of annotations, the description covers the main behavior and a key side effect. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a delete tool with an output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 has 2 parameters with only 50% description coverage (concept_id is described, actor_context is not). The description adds no additional meaning to either parameter, leaving actor_context completely 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?

Clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'concept', and includes the important side effect of removing REFERENCES relationships. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete other resources (e.g., delete_artifact, delete_project) or modify concepts (update_concept).

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?

Implies when to use this tool (when a concept and its references should be removed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentioning alternatives like unlink_concept_from_session. The context is implied rather than stated.

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