delete_repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('irreversible') and the required parameter ('repo_slug'), though it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what 'Success status' entails. The warning adds critical context beyond basic function.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical warning, and then structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place—no wasted words—making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the irreversible nature and parameter basics but omits details on permissions, error handling, or the structure of the return value ('Success status'), leaving gaps for safe agent use.

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?

The description adds meaning by specifying that 'repo_slug' is the 'Repository slug to delete', which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic title ('Repo Slug'). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though more detail on format or examples would be beneficial.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a Bitbucket repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'update_repository'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description provides clear context with the 'WARNING: This action is irreversible!' statement, which implicitly guides when to use this tool (for permanent deletion) versus alternatives like 'update_repository' for modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify prerequisites beyond the warning.

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