delete_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Permanently' hints at destructiveness but doesn't disclose what happens to the space's contents (tasks, folders, lists), whether there's any recovery mechanism, or any confirmation/authentication requirements. For a destructive delete operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately minimal for a straightforward action. However, at only 3 words, it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, but for a single-parameter delete tool it's reasonably sized.

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?

The tool is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description should disclose the permanence implications, cascade effects on contained resources, and any error conditions. With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema is handled, but the destructive nature of the operation is under-communicated despite the 'permanently' qualifier.

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 schema already documents space_id as 'The space ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the single parameter is self-explanatory.

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 'Delete a space permanently' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (space), with the important qualifier 'permanently' signaling irreversibility. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools (delete_space_tag, delete_folder, delete_list) by naming the specific resource. However, it's quite minimal and doesn't elaborate beyond the basic action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when NOT to use it, or alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the space must be empty, or whether there's a soft-delete alternative). It doesn't distinguish when to use delete_space vs delete_folder or delete_list for cascading effects.

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