Delete an author

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by revealing critical behavioral details: articles are not deleted but their author_id becomes null, the operation is permanent with no trash or undo, and it requires specific scope permissions. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent understand side effects, even though destructiveHint=true is already present.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the core action, then explains consequences, permanence, consent requirement, and credentials. Each of the four sentences contributes essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 deletion tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the immediate effect, the cascading impact on articles, the irreversibility, the necessary human consent, and the exact permission scope. No output schema is present, but for a simple destructive operation, the description provides all needed context for selection and invocation.

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. The description reinforces the confirm parameter ('pass confirm: true only once they have agreed') and clarifies that id refers to the author being deleted, but it doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema. The schema already explains confirm's behavior and id's type.

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 tool's function: 'Delete an author.' It specifies the exact resource and verb, and further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the effect on associated articles (they remain published but lose their byline). This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from list, create, get, and update author tools.

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 provides explicit usage preconditions: 'Ask the user before calling this' and 'pass confirm: true only once they have agreed.' It also notes the requirement for a secret key with authors:write scope. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, the destructive and permanent nature is clearly communicated, giving sufficient context for appropriate use.

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