delete_scope

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

The description explicitly lists side effects ('DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE', 'permanently removes all facts', 'cascades TMS retraction'), authentication requirements ('X-Tenant-ID header', 'FACT_WRITE permission'), rate limiting, and possible errors. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively.

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 extremely concise—three sentences covering purpose, usage, and side effects/auth/errors. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and use case, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 single-parameter, destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use, behavioral side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, and error conditions. Nothing essential is missing, making it fully complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 provides a description for the 'scope' parameter ('The scope name to delete'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context that the scope is a 'named scope' and ties it to fact deletion, but does not add new semantic constraints or format details beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'named scope', and explains it removes all facts within the scope. It provides use case context ('clean up completed or abandoned hypothetical reasoning branches'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'forget' or 'cleanup', so it loses a point for lacking sibling distinction.

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 includes a use case: 'Use to clean up completed or abandoned hypothetical reasoning branches.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it lacks a complete usage guideline.

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