delete_category

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the critical qualifier that documents are only detached and preserved — the single most important fact for an agent deciding whether this destructive op is safe. It also discloses the authorization boundary that category-scoped credentials will fail.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the scope-defining side effect (documents preserved) is front-loaded, and the authorization constraint follows as a secondary condition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers side effects, auth scope, and a single fully-documented parameter. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is recoverable or requires confirmation, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema itself explaining that the UUID comes from a preceding list/read operation. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Names a specific verb (Delete) plus resource (workspace category) and immediately states the distinguishing side effect (documents are detached, not deleted). This separates it cleanly from siblings like delete_document, delete_folder, and delete_tag, whose cascade semantics differ.

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 an explicit prerequisite and a negative condition: full workspace write access is required and category-scoped credentials are denied. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or say when to prefer this over e.g. delete_tag or delete_folder in ambiguous cases.

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