Delete an unused OtaKit bundle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is refused if the bundle appears in release history, it is audited, and exact IDs are needed — all beyond what the annotations state.

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, no filler, with the destructive precondition front-loaded before the ID and audit details. Every clause carries operational weight.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the eligibility precondition, ID requirements, and auditability. It stops short of describing the response or failure modes when the precondition is violated, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 both parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates that exact IDs are required, and it slightly overstates by saying both are required while the appId schema notes it is optional on a local connection with a configured project.

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+resource ('Delete a bundle') plus a hard precondition ('only when it is absent from all release history'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read tools get_bundle and list_bundles. An agent can identify the operation and its guard condition without opening the schema.

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 a clear condition for legitimate use ('absent from all release history'), which implicitly tells the agent when NOT to call it. However, it names no alternative action for bundles that are still referenced (e.g. revoke or archive), so the fallback path is left to inference.

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