delete_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the delete is 'soft', implying the record is not permanently destroyed. It omits what state the component ends up in, whether it can be restored, idempotency on repeat calls, and any 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?

A single six-word sentence with the action and its scoping constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 complete schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves open the practical consequences of a soft-delete (recoverability, visibility of the deleted component), which matter for a destructive operation with no annotations.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. 'By id' in the description adds only a restatement of the schema's id property.

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 ('soft-delete') and resource ('component by id'), which cleanly distinguishes it from delete_page, delete_media, and delete_redirect in the sibling list. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with update_component or explain how soft-delete differs operationally, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no note on whether the soft-deleted component can be restored, and no pointer to an alternative such as update_component for non-destructive edits. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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