delete_persona

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that deletion is destructive but recoverable, explains the soft-delete behavior, describes how listing is affected, and details the two possible causes of a 409 error. This goes well beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 four sentences, each conveying distinct, essential information: the core action and recovery, the need to read version, and error handling for 409. No redundancies, well front-loaded.

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 delete operation with soft-delete, versioning, and conflict handling, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, recovery, error resolution, and parameter usage. References to sibling tools (restore_persona) complete the context. No output schema exists, but return value is not essential here.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of expectedVersion (reading first to get it) and the confirmation requirement (acknowledges destructiveness). It provides behavioral context beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 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 clearly states the tool deletes a persona, specifies it's a soft-delete that is recoverable via restore_persona, and distinguishes it from listing tools by noting that the persona will not appear in list_personas until restored. This provides a specific verb-resource pair with sibling 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 explicitly advises to read the persona first for its version before deletion, explains how to handle 409 errors (stale version vs. reference conflict), and mentions the recoverability via restore_persona. It gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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