Delete Glossary Term

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the key trait not covered there: 'No undo' — irreversibility. It does not say what happens to references or usages of the term (find_usages exists as a sibling), which is the one behavioral gap for a destructive operation.

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 very short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive nature and irreversibility front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing repeated from annotations or 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 two-parameter, non-open-world mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what is needed to call it safely. The only missing piece is the downstream effect on anything referencing the deleted term.

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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with per-field descriptions for id and group. The description adds only 'by id', not clarifying the group scoping or whether group/id must match an existing pair. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Hard-delete a glossary term by id') with an explicit qualifier ('Hard') that separates it from soft-removal or edit operations. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like term_record, term_list and term_search without opening any schema.

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?

'Use to remove obsolete or wrong terms' gives a clear condition for selecting this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. term_record for renaming or deprecating instead of deleting) or stating prerequisites, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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