delete_faq

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing something annotations cannot express: that the FAQ's embeddings are deleted along with the record, a cascading effect an agent should know before calling. It stops short of saying what happens with a nonexistent id.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the side-effect detail. Nothing redundant is included.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what matters most: the action and the non-obvious cascade to embeddings. It could add error behavior for missing or already-deleted ids, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'id' as a numeric id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete an FAQ') and adds the side effect that the FAQ's embeddings are removed too, which distinguishes it from siblings like update_faq or get_faq. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as update_faq (for retiring content without deletion) or get_faq, and no stated prerequisites or warnings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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