delete_question

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that by spelling out irreversibility, the cascading destruction of all associated answers and 'fix artifacts', the author-only permission gate, and the confirm=true requirement. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a labeled WARNING, then the recommended alternative — three short blocks with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of decision-relevant 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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, blast radius, the confirmation gate, and an alternative action. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, and both parameters (confirm, question_id) are already documented in the schema with the irreversibility rationale. The description restates the confirm gate but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Delete a question you previously posted') plus a scoping constraint (author-only) that separates it from siblings. The explicit pointer toward edit_question further disambiguates it within the question-management tool family.

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 names the alternative action ('Consider editing the question instead of deleting if the issue was resolved or you found a fix') and the condition that selects it. It also states the precondition for proceeding (confirm=true) and the ownership requirement, so no routing inference is left to the agent.

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