source_delete

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: the two-phase preview-then-confirm pattern, the XOR constraint between source and sources, and the requirement to use the preview's canonical notebook_id, which guards against confirming on stale data.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded ('Delete sources'). The preview/confirm guidance is dense but earns its place; the RST-style double backticks add minor noise without bloat.

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 destructive tool with annotation coverage and an existing output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: the preview/confirm safety workflow and the parameter exclusivity rule. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without explaining return values.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain the key semantics: source XOR sources (mutual exclusivity), omit both for preview, and the need for canonical notebook_id plus source id(s) to confirm. The confirm boolean itself is only implied rather than named, leaving a small gap.

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 sources'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like source_add, source_rename, and source_read. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the delete action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear operational workflow: omit both parameters to preview, then confirm with the preview's canonical notebook_id and source id(s). This tells the agent when it is in preview vs. destructive mode, though it does not reference sibling tools as alternatives.

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