source_delete

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 describes key traits: the action is destructive ('Delete permanently'), irreversible ('IRREVERSIBLE'), and has a safety mechanism ('Requires confirm=True'). This covers critical behavioral aspects beyond what the input schema provides.

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 warnings, followed by a concise Args section that explains parameters without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, such as emphasizing irreversibility and confirmation requirements, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (destructive operation) and no annotations, the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, behavior, and parameters. However, it does not mention the output schema's content (e.g., success/failure response), which could be helpful. Siblings like source_describe or source_list_drive provide context, but the description stands well on its own.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'source_id' is explained as 'Source UUID to delete,' and 'confirm' is clarified with 'Must be True after user approval,' which provides context beyond the schema's basic types. This fully addresses the parameters' purposes and constraints.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('source'), and the permanence ('permanently'), which distinguishes it from siblings like notebook_delete or studio_delete that delete different resources. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 for usage by specifying 'Requires confirm=True' and 'after user approval,' which indicates when to use it (after confirmation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as whether there are soft-delete options or other deletion tools.

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