source_delete

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

Even though annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical behavioral details: the confirmation flow, that the default call is a non-destructive preview, and that irreversible deletion only occurs with confirm=True. This goes well beyond the annotations and is essential for safe usage.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then provide necessary usage detail. No wasted words, every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 tool, the description explains the essential confirmation workflow and irreversibility, which is the most critical context. It does not mention error conditions or the exact format of the preview, but given the output schema exists and the two-step process is clear, it is reasonably complete. The slight ambiguity around identifier formats keeps it from being perfect.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that `source` can be a name or ID and that `confirm` controls the two-step behavior. However, the phrase 'notebook/source name or ID' is slightly ambiguous regarding whether `notebook` is also a name or ID, so it does not fully clarify all parameter nuances.

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 opens with 'Delete a source (irreversible)', which is a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like source_read or source_rename. It also clarifies that it accepts a name or ID, further eliminating ambiguity.

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 two-step confirmation process is clearly described, giving explicit instructions on how to use the tool safely (preview with confirm=False, then delete with confirm=True). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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