Delete crawl

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the deletion is permanent, what child records (snapshots, files) are removed with the crawl, or how the confirm parameter behaves when omitted. For a destructive tool, repeating "Delete a crawl" is the bare minimum.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but a raw HTTP route plus an "Args:" block that restates a single self-evident parameter is structural noise rather than useful information. It is concise without being informative — the brevity reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, most of the burden falls on annotations, which do cover destructiveness and idempotency. However, the description never explains irreversibility, the confirm escape hatch, or what is destroyed along with the crawl, leaving genuine gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 50% — confirm is well documented in the schema, while crawl_id is only the tautological line "The crawl id." which adds no meaning such as format, where to obtain it, or whether it is the numeric or UUID form. With half the parameters already covered by the schema, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does nothing to improve on it.

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 names a specific verb ("Delete") and resource ("a crawl"), so an agent can tell it apart from the many sibling read/delete tools by resource type. It also exposes the underlying REST route, which reinforces the resource identity. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation language (e.g. vs. archivebox_delete_snapshot), so it is clear but not exemplary.

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 statement of prerequisites or permissions, and no mention of alternatives such as the non-destructive get_crawl or patch_crawl siblings. The existence of a confirm flag is never referenced in the description, so the agent gets no guidance on the confirmation flow.

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