delete_web_package

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that the delete is soft, that the package stops being listed, that existing references in unpublished courses are not rewritten, and that the call is refused rather than partially applied in live-use conflict cases. It also discloses the required OAuth scope. This gives the agent a clear model of the operation's behavior and failure modes.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the essential behavior, and subsequent sections add necessary detail about id semantics, refusal conditions, soft-delete behavior, and OAuth scope. Each paragraph earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 destructive operation with one parameter and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is complete. It covers the core action, the single parameter's semantics, the conflict case, the soft-delete nature, the prerequisite steps, and the required OAuth scope. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call this tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining that `id` is the obfuscated package id and that only one id is accepted, not a batch. This directly clarifies the sole parameter's meaning and constraints beyond what the schema's type/required fields provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one web package.' It also clarifies that it is a single-package operation rather than a batch, which distinguishes it from potential batch operations and sets clear expectations.

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 clearly explains when the call is refused (when a live lesson uses the package) and gives the prerequisite action to resolve the conflict: unpublish the course or repoint the lesson first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but provides strong contextual guidance for when this operation is applicable and when it is not.

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