delete_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it declares permanence, the confirm gate, and the important side-effect boundary that generated assets survive unless delete_generated_assets is also true. That is genuine behavioral disclosure an agent could not infer from the schema. It omits permissions requirements and whether undo_action can recover the deletion.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the destructive nature and the confirm requirement front-loaded before the side-effect caveat. Every sentence carries information.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky parts well but leaves half the parameters and the recovery story unexplained. An agent could call it safely only if it already knows what item_id and project expect.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains two: confirm and delete_generated_assets. The required item_id and the project parameter (which defaults to 'default') are left entirely undefined, so an agent must guess their format and scoping.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete one blueprint') with the scope qualifier 'one', which is precise enough to distinguish it from bulk or folder-level operations among siblings. An agent knows immediately what this tool does.

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 gives a hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true'), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what happens versus undo_action, a sibling that could plausibly reverse it. Usage is implied rather than framed.

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