p4_client_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'Delete a client/workspace' states the action but does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility, impact on open files, or the behavior of the 'force' parameter beyond what the schema already mentions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it is very brief, it earns a high score for conciseness, though it sacrifices completeness (covered elsewhere).

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, the effect on the workspace, or the role of the optional path and force parameters (though the schema covers these). The description lacks enough context for an agent to fully understand the operation's implications.

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%, and the schema provides descriptions for all parameters (client, path, force). The tool description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description aligns with the 'client' parameter but offers no extra semantic detail.

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 'Delete a client/workspace' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('client/workspace'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like p4_client_list, p4_client_create, and p4_client_edit. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the user wants to delete a Perforce client/workspace. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context from sibling tools makes the use case apparent, but explicit guidance is missing.

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