delete_prompt_partial

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond that: the operation is irreversible and it produces a cascade failure in any prompt that references the partial via {{> name}}. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens to historical versions, but the cascade consequence is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the irreversibility stated immediately after the action and the rendering consequence front-loaded as the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to explain the action and its side effects, which it does well. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies the ID-vs-slug input or whether deleting a published partial behaves differently, which matters for a destructive 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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented as 'Prompt partial ID or slug to delete'. The description restates 'by ID' and in fact narrows the schema's broader 'ID or slug' contract, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work, and here it does.

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?

Specific verb+resource: deletes a prompt partial identified by ID. This is clearly distinguishable from delete_prompt, delete_prompt_label, and delete_workspace in the sibling list because the resource noun is precise. It stops short of stating how it differs from other prompt-partial operations (e.g. that it removes all versions), so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the warning that referencing prompts will break 'until you replace the reference' hints that update_prompt_partial or reference edits should precede or follow deletion, but no alternative or precondition is named explicitly. There is no statement of when deletion is inappropriate (e.g. a published/versioned partial) or which sibling to use instead.

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