contentrain_vocabulary_delete

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that existing content using the terms is unaffected, the vocabulary is merely advisory, and changes are auto-committed to git. These details are not present in the annotations and significantly enhance the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two key behavioral caveats. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 simple delete tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is deleted, what is not affected, and how persistence works (git commit). It lacks explicit success-failure response details, but that is not critical for this low-complexity 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (terms and confirm). The description's phrase 'by slug' is redundant with the schema's description for terms. It adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('canonical vocabulary terms by slug'), which unambiguously states the tool's function. It effectively distinguishes the delete operation from the sibling save tool (contentrain_vocabulary_save).

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 for deleting vocabulary terms, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The statement about content not being touched offers context on impact, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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