Delete Capacities object

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context by differentiating trash (recoverable) from permanent (irreversible). This goes beyond the boolean hint, though it does not mention side effects on related objects or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant phrasing. Every clause adds value: the first sentence states the action, the second explains the safety default and permanent override.

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-object delete operation, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter toggle. It leaves out potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletes, reference integrity) and permission notes, but given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, it is near-complete.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning for the 'id' or 'apiToken' parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'permanent=true' echoes the schema's own description, so the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'Delete a Capacities object', a specific verb+resource pairing that immediately clarifies what the tool does. The resource 'Capacities object' distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_block, which targets a different entity.

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 operational guidance: the safe default moves to trash, while permanent deletion requires permanent=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the trash-vs-permanent distinction implies a recommended usage path, which is adequate for this simple delete tool.

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