Delete a diagram

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description explains the concrete consequences: soft-delete, removal from list_diagrams, and inability to fetch. It also emphasizes user confirmation, adding significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 action, and no redundant wording. The 'soft-delete' clarification and the destructive warning each add value without bloat.

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 simple delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, ownership prerequisite, behavioral effects, and safety warning. It does not specify return values, but the consequence is clearly stated, making it complete for typical usage.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (diagram_id) with a clear description ('The diagram id'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), resource ('diagram'), and adds the specific 'soft-delete' behavior and ownership constraint ('a diagram you own'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_diagram or revert_diagram, which prevents a 5.

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 says 'Confirm with the user before calling — this is destructive' and implies use only for owned diagrams, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or provide alternatives among the many siblings. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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