delete_hive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive nature of the operation and that it cascades to all knowledge entries. While it doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, the described impact is sufficient for an agent to understand this is a high-impact deletion.

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 two sentences long, direct, and front-loaded with the essential action ('Delete project hive...') followed by the use case. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information or repetition.

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?

The tool is a simple destructive operation with no output schema. The description provides the essential context: what is deleted, the scope (all knowledge entries), and when to use it. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly without additional details about return values or side effects.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable but not exceptional. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the semantics.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a project hive and all associated knowledge entries, distinguishing it from siblings that read, create, or update hives. It also explains the purpose (start fresh or remove completely), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit usage guidance ('Use this to start fresh or remove a project's knowledge base completely'), which implies when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not name specific alternatives like delete_project_entry, but the sibling context makes the intended use case clear enough.

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