artifact_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect (deleting the now-empty containing artifact directory for skills/hooks) and implies optimistic concurrency via the required if_match. However it says nothing about permissions/auth needs, whether deletion is reversible, or what happens on an if_match mismatch.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope; the long path enumeration is informative rather than filler. The if_match requirement is stated compactly in a second sentence. Slightly dense but no wasted phrasing.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, the directory side effect, and required-parameter sourcing, which is solid. Yet it omits failure/mismatch behavior and authorization requirements that an agent needs to call a destructive operation confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that if_match is the sha256 of the current content and must be sourced from artifact_read/artifact_list. The path and reason parameters are left to the schema, which is adequate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Deletes") and a precisely scoped resource ("KB-root artifact file"), then enumerates the exact path patterns covered (skills/<slug>/**, agents/<slug>.md, hooks/**, etc.). This makes the tool recognizable against siblings like asset_delete or concept_delete. It stops short of an explicit sibling contrast, keeping it at 4.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it declares if_match as required and specifies where to obtain it (artifact_read/artifact_list), effectively routing the agent to prerequisite siblings. It does not state when NOT to use it or name the alternative delete tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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