delete_idea

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: deletion is permanent and irreversible, so confirmation is required. It leaves gaps on edge cases — whether a missing id errors, and whether deletion cascades to related records — but the destructive nature and safety protocol are clearly stated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: the action and its danger first, then the safety protocol, then the id-resolution workaround. No filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the important agent-facing concerns (irreversibility, confirmation, id sourcing) are covered. Only error behavior and possible side effects on related data are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the id property has no description, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the id must be exact and is not a title, which is genuinely useful, but it never states the id's format (UUID, slug, numeric) so an agent still cannot construct or validate one.

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?

States a specific verb (delete), resource (idea), scope (ONE, by exact id), and consequence (permanently). The emphasis on 'ONE' implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk sibling clear_ideas without needing to name it.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Confirm with the user first'), an explicit anti-pattern ('Never guess an id from a vague title'), and routes the agent to the concrete alternative ('list ideas to find it'), which maps to the list_ideas sibling.

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