delete_concept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that links to the concept from other concepts' causes are scrubbed, which is a significant side effect. However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or return value, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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, directly front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. It is appropriately sized and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the core action and the link-scrubbing side effect, but it lacks information about permanence, return value, or error conditions, which are relevant for a delete operation. For its simplicity, it is reasonably complete but not fully specified.

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 schema has a single 'id' parameter with no description, and the description only says 'by id,' which aligns with the parameter name but adds little extra meaning. It does not specify the id format or clarify that it is the concept's unique identifier beyond what the property name implies.

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 concept by id, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_concept and upsert_concept by focusing on deletion, and the added detail about scrubbing links clarifies the operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as upsert_concept, or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to other tools, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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