delete_topic

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial beyond-annotation context: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, removes all messages, and requires user ownership. This fully discloses the consequences and authorization boundaries of invoking the tool.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: permanent deletion, irreversibility, invocation condition, and ownership constraint. The most critical behavioral warning is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide when and how to invoke the tool safely. It clearly states the action, the prerequisite, and the consequence without requiring further inference.

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 input schema already covers the parameter fully with a type and example format. The description adds the ownership constraint on the topic name ('must be one they own'), which is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema, so it earns above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('PERMANENTLY delete'), a specific resource ('Kafka topic'), and clarifies scope ('the topic and all its messages'). It clearly differentiates this from container-level or non-destructive operations like purge_topic by emphasizing permanent removal of the topic 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 explicit invocation conditions: only call when the user clearly asked to remove the topic, and only for a topic the user owns. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like purge_topic, so it loses one point, but the stated usage constraint is strong and actionable.

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