github_delete_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers strongly. It explicitly warns 'This action cannot be undone' and enumerates what gets destroyed: 'All data, issues, PRs, and wiki will be lost.' The ⚠️ symbol draws attention to the irreversibility. This is exemplary for a destructive tool with zero annotation support.

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 tight and front-loaded. The first line states the core action, the warning is prominent, and the Args section is minimal. Every sentence earns its place — no fluff, no redundant prose.

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 destructive 3-parameter tool, the description is largely sufficient. The warning covers the critical behavioral risk, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The session_name parameter could use more context, but the core destructive action and its consequences are well documented, which is the most important completeness concern here.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters, but it only provides terse docstring lines: 'Repository owner', 'Repository name', 'GitHub session to use'. These add minimal meaning beyond what the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'session_name') already imply. It does not clarify, e.g., the format of owner (username vs org), whether repo is name-only or includes owner prefix, or what sessions are and how session_name affects behavior.

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+resource: 'Delete a GitHub repository permanently.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like github_delete_branch, github_delete_file, and github_delete_release, which target different resources. The word 'permanently' adds destructive scope that sets it apart from other delete siblings.

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 clearly states the action but provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should only be used after confirming with the user, or that it could be the final action in a session. There's no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, though the destructive warning implicitly discourages casual use.

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