delete_repl

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 mentions the confirmation requirement, which is a critical safety feature for a destructive operation, but fails to describe other important behaviors such as whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated resources, or error handling for invalid IDs. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key constraint without any wasted words. Every element ('Delete a repl by ID' and 'requires confirmation') serves a clear functional purpose.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits critical details such as the permanence of deletion, effects on related data, response format, or error conditions. The confirmation requirement is noted, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'confirm'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that 'confirm' is a safety measure, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('a repl by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_file' by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'delete_secret'.

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 implies usage context through '(requires confirmation)', suggesting this tool should be used when deletion is intended and confirmed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'stop_repl' or 'delete_file', nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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