concept_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses permanence, git-commit side effect, refusal-with-linkers behavior, that links are never rewritten, and the second force condition for expanded concepts owning assets. It stops short of permission/auth requirements or confirmation semantics, so not a perfect 5, but the destructive profile is clearly conveyed.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the destructive action and its refusal mechanics, then the alternatives, then the extra force condition. No filler sentences; each one carries a distinct constraint.

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 four-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behavioral essentials an agent needs to call it safely and correctly. It does not describe the response shape (e.g., the linker list payload) or the id hash format, which is a minor residual gap.

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 75%, with id undocumented. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the second trigger for force=true (an expanded concept owning assets), complementing the schema's own wording about broken inbound links and asset deletion. id's meaning is self-evident from context, so this lands above the baseline-3 case.

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?

A precise verb+resource ('Permanently removes a concept') plus the notable detail that this is a git commit. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings that could be confused with it (supersede, concept_move), so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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?

States the refusal condition (inbound_links unless force=true) and names the two alternative tools with the conditions that select them: keep the page -> supersede, rename -> concept_move. This is explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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