delete_initiative

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains that local deletion drops scoping and forgets exclusive nodes, that shared nodes only lose membership, that local deletion is recoverable via `at`, and that cloud deletion is irreversible for everyone. This is exactly the kind of destructive-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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 action and packed with distinct, non-redundant information. Every sentence adds a new behavioral constraint (scope, shared nodes, local default, cloud irreversibility), with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers default behavior, local versus cloud effects, reversibility, shared-node handling, and when the cloud name is required. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by stating that with several clouds configured the name is required rather than defaulted, and it reinforces the irreversible cloud-wide effect, which helps an agent decide whether to pass `cloud` at all.

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 (Delete) and resource (initiative), and immediately describes the scoping and node-level effects. It distinguishes local from cloud deletion and names the bi-temporal recovery mechanism, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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?

The description provides usage context for the `cloud` parameter ('Local by default. Pass cloud=... to ALSO delete it...'), including when the name is required with multiple clouds. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like merge_initiative, forget, or rename_initiative, so guidance is implied rather than comparative.

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