Delete My Entry

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

It goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint, non-idempotent) by disclosing two consequences an agent can't infer: the action is gated on course policy and classmates will see that an entry was removed. The dry-run-first instruction for an irreversible mutation is exactly the behavioral guidance the annotations can't express.

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 short sentences, zero filler: the action and permission gate come first, the social consequence second, the irreversibility warning bracketed at the end. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the permission gate, the social side effect, and the confirmation protocol. The only gap is that it doesn't say what the dry-run preview actually returns, which matters for the first call.

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 per-parameter descriptions already carry the ID sourcing rules. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing 'confirm' as an ordered preview-then-execute workflow rather than a plain boolean.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... discussion entries'), scopes it to the caller's own entries, and conditions it on course policy. It is clearly distinct from siblings like edit_my_entry or delete_conversation.

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?

It gives an explicit conditional ('if the course allows it') and a concrete two-step call sequence (preview without confirm, then re-call with confirm=true). It does not explicitly point to edit_my_entry as the alternative when deletion isn't wanted, which keeps it below a 5.

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