Classification Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: affected conversations are reassigned to reassignTo or left unclassified, and knowledge entries may be impacted. It does not state irreversibility or permission requirements, so not a 5.

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. The destructive action is front-loaded and the consequential behavior and the recommended pre-flight check follow in priority order. Every clause carries operational weight.

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 full annotation coverage, a 100%-documented schema and no output schema, this is close to complete: consequences are spelled out and a discovery tool is recommended. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is reversible or what happens to knowledge entries, deferring that to classification_impact.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning over the schema by disclosing the fallback behavior of the optional reassignTo parameter ('or left unclassified'), which the schema does not state. organizationId and classificationId gain nothing beyond the schema's own pointers.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a classification'), immediately distinguishing it from classification_create, classification_update, and classification_impact in the sibling set. It goes further by stating the resulting state of affected data, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is.

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 names a concrete pre-flight alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use classification_impact first to see how many conversations and knowledge entries are affected.' That is clear when-to-use-before-this guidance, though it stops short of stating outright exclusions or when not to delete.

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