delete_config

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further and explains exactly what is destroyed: permanence, removal of all versions, and downstream breakage of anything referencing the slug. That downstream-impact detail is not derivable from the schema or annotations and is the most decision-relevant fact for an agent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence pair: what it does, then the consequences and the prerequisite check. No boilerplate, no restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: irreversibility, cascade scope, and a verification step. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is absent.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'slug'. The phrase 'by slug' in the description adds nothing beyond it; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 (delete) and resource (config) plus the identifying key (slug). It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like update_config, get_config, and list_configs, which operate on the same resource without destroying it.

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 a concrete pre-flight step, 'check list_config_versions first', and names the sibling to use for it, which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of stating the when-not case (e.g., 'use update_config to modify instead of deleting'), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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