delete_tool_version

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

Discloses that the removal is permanent but recoverable until purged, and names protected versions. No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. Lacks details on permissions, irreversibility after purge, or impact on tool status.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), description covers purpose, constraints on protected versions, and recoverability. Minor omission: doesn't mention that versionId must belong to the tool's version history, but schema implies that.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with decent parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning to parameters; it implicitly acknowledges destructiveness (supports confirm parameter) but doesn't explicitly explain why confirm is required.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Permanently remove'), the resource ('entry from a tool's version history'), and distinguishes from siblings like delete_tool and restore_deleted_tool_version. It also specifies protected versions (draft and published).

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?

Explicitly states that the working draft and currently published version are protected and cannot be targeted, guiding the agent on what not to do. Also mentions recoverability via restore_deleted_tool_version. However, it could more explicitly contrast with other version deletion tools like delete_workflow_version.

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