ghl_delete_faq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does disclose permanence ('Permanently delete') and the success return value ('Returns { success: true } on success'), which are useful. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., what if FAQ not found), permissions, or side effects beyond deletion. This is partial transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It states what the tool does and what to expect on success, with no wasted words. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple single-parameter delete tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the input, the permanence, and the success return value. It lacks error-handling details (e.g., not-found or failure responses), but given the simplicity and the rich sibling context, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage: faqId is described as 'The FAQ ID to delete.' The description adds the phrase 'by FAQ ID,' which reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Permanently delete an FAQ from a knowledge base by FAQ ID.' The verb 'delete' is specific, the resource is 'FAQ from a knowledge base,' and the scope is precise (by FAQ ID). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_update_faq and ghl_create_faq.

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: use this when you want to remove an FAQ, and the permanence warning suggests caution. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'use ghl_update_faq to modify instead'). For a simple delete tool, this is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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