Delete a journal

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that the deletion is permanent ('for good') and cascades to all pages, plus the specific permission permission needed. This is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the key prerequisite. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 one-parameter mutation with a destructive hint, the description covers scope, permanence, and permission requirements. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. It is adequate and complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already fully describes the sole parameter journalId as 'Id of the journal, from list-journals.' The description offers no additional parameter-level semantics; schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('a whole journal'), and explicitly clarifies scope ('with all its pages'), which clearly distinguishes it from journal-delete-page. The scope is precise enough for an agent to know exactly what object and scope the operation acts on.

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 context about scope and prerequisites: it requires the journal permission level 'create, change and delete' and notes it is off by default. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to journal-delete-page for individual pages; the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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