delete_prompt_label

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is narrower. It still adds real value by spelling out the downstream effects: irreversibility, versions losing the label, and workflows resolving by that label requiring a replacement. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences; the operation is front-loaded and the destructive consequences follow immediately. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and a single fully documented parameter, the description covers the one thing structured fields can't express: the ripple effects of deletion. Missing only explicit guidance on the alternative path for label reassignment.

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?

Only one parameter (label_id) with 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing the schema doesn't already say, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a prompt label') and the selector ('by ID'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling CRUD operations create_prompt_label, update_prompt_label, get_prompt_label, and list_prompt_labels.

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 makes the consequences explicit enough that an agent can judge whether deletion is appropriate, and it warns about the workflow-replacement precondition. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives (e.g., update_prompt_label to reassign) or state when not to delete.

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