delete_prompt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable operational context beyond them: the action is irreversible, it deletes all versions, it breaks slug-based callers immediately, and it has audit-trail implications. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the irreversible consequence, then the recommended precaution. Every clause carries useful information.

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?

Given the rich annotations, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs to know before invoking a destructive delete. It addresses irreversibility, scope, caller impact, and audit-trail considerations without unnecessary detail.

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 single prompt_id parameter is already documented as accepting an ID or slug. The description reinforces ID-based deletion but does not add syntax or handling details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a prompt') plus an important scope detail ('all its versions by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from prompt-related siblings like update_prompt, get_prompt, or list_prompt_versions.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for use: only after checking list_prompt_versions or confirming no audit trail is needed. It also explains a key consequence that should influence tool selection: callers using the slug will break immediately.

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