delete_library

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive. The description adds context: files are not deleted, and admin permission is required. This goes beyond the annotation but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as irreversibility or impact on related series/books. With the annotation lowering the bar, a score of 3 reflects the added context without being rich.

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 one succinct sentence with two clauses, covering the core action and a key exclusion. Every word serves a purpose, and it is easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description captures the essential behavior: delete the library, preserve files, and require admin. It does not enumerate all side effects, but the presence of an output schema and annotations fills in some gaps. A 4 reflects that it is adequately complete, with only minor missing details like reversibility or related-data handling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain that library_id refers to the ID of the library to be deleted, though the name and sentence imply it. No additional format, validation, or example is provided. The low coverage and minimal description warrant a below-average score.

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 a library without deleting its files.' This specifies the verb (delete), the resource (library), and a key differentiator (files are not deleted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like empty_library_trash and create_library.

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 implies usage context: you use this when you want to remove a library while preserving its files. It also states a prerequisite (Requires ADMIN). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops at implied guidance rather than full when/when-not.

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