Delete compendium

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes further: it discloses irreversibility, the non-default/off-by-default permission, and the exact-label safety guard. These are non-obvious behavioral constraints not captured by annotations alone.

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 short, front-loaded with the core destructive purpose, and contains no padding. It slightly duplicates the schema's confirmLabel description, but the repetition serves to emphasize a critical safety prerequisite.

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 output schema, the description covers all necessary calling context: what is deleted, irreversibility, permission requirements, the label safeguard, and what kinds of compendiums are excluded. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and avoid dangerous mistakes.

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 input schema describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about packId referring to a whole world compendium and confirms the label requirement, but mostly reinforces the schema rather than providing new semantic information.

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 explicitly states 'Remove a world compendium and everything in it', specifying the verb and the exact resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete-compendium-entries by limiting scope to whole world compendiums and excluding module/system packs.

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 gives clear boundaries: only world compendiums are eligible, and module/system compendiums cannot be removed. It also informs the agent about the permission prerequisite and the required confirmLabel. It does not name a sibling tool like delete-compendium-entries explicitly, which costs a point.

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