libredesk_delete

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description goes further and names exactly what each delete destroys: a help center takes all its collections and articles, a collection takes its articles, translations survive an article delete, and assistants stop using a snippet. It also flags 'Deletes cannot be undone' and 'Undocumented API', which is information no structured field carries.

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 front-loaded sentences carry the irreversible and undocumented warnings, followed by a compact action list where every line adds a distinct fact. No sentence is filler.

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, undocumented API with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, cascade scope, and per-action parameters well. What it omits is whether a success response or confirmation is returned and what error behavior to expect when the target is missing or still referenced.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the pairing the schema does not state: collection_delete consumes both help_center_id and id, while article_delete and snippet_delete take only id. The 'profile' parameter is still unexplained, but the action-to-parameter mapping is a genuine addition.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and the exact four resources affected, then breaks each down by action name and effect. An agent can tell immediately this is the destructive counterpart to the sibling help-center/article tools without opening any schema.

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?

Each action line gives a clear condition for choosing it (help_center_delete vs collection_delete vs article_delete vs snippet_delete), which is the real selection problem for a multi-action tool. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to siblings like libredesk_help_center for non-delete operations, and states no permission prerequisites.

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