Delete an article

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: permanent deletion, removal of tag assignments, 404 impact after cache purge, no trash/undo, and the confirm flag's dry-run behavior. It also explains the if_match concurrency control's effect. Annotations already indicate destructive=True, but the description enriches this with specific scenarios and consequences.

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?

Every sentence carries critical information: the action, permanence, side effects, irreversibility, consent requirement, and authentication. It is direct and front-loaded with the most important warning 'Permanent', followed by concrete consequences. No redundancy or 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation context: what gets deleted, downstream effects, irreversibility, user consent workflow, authentication scope, and concurrency handling. It fully prepares the agent to use the tool correctly and safely.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'confirm' by explaining that omitting it results in a preview instead of deletion, and for 'if_match' by describing optimistic concurrency. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, earning a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('article'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like update_article or publish_article. It immediately states the destructive nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the 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?

Explicitly instructs to ask the user before calling and to pass confirm:true only after agreement. Also specifies the required API key scope (articles:write), providing clear operational prerequisites. This goes beyond simple context and gives actionable when-to-use guidance.

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