Prompt 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 by structured data. The description's only addition is 'permanently', which largely restates the destructive annotation and adds no fresh behavioral context such as authorization requirements, cascade effects, or consequences for dependent prompts.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words; the key word 'permanently' is well-placed. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification for a destructive operation.

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 delete tool the description is very thin: it does not describe consequences, reversibility beyond the single word 'permanently', or required context. Although annotations and schema carry the safety profile and parameter docs, the description leaves gaps an agent would want filled before invoking a destructive action.

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 both parameters (promptId, organizationId) are already documented in the schema, with cross-references to prompt_list and organization_list. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (delete) and resource (saved prompt), and adds the qualifier 'permanently'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling delete-type tools (e.g., template_delete, knowledge_delete) or route the agent away from prompt_update/prompt_get.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (such as required permissions or organization scoping), and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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