kb_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context beyond these: it emphasizes the permanence of the deletion and the scope ('ALL its documents'), and adds the user-confirmation requirement. This provides the agent with critical behavioral information without contradicting the annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does ('Permanently delete a Knowledge Base and ALL its documents') followed by a warning and idempotency note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 the essential aspects: permanent deletion, scope, user confirmation, and idempotency. The only missing piece is parameter semantics, but the required IDs are clear from the schema titles and the tool's purpose. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of parameters. Required params project_id and collection_id are somewhat self-explanatory from titles, but the optional config parameter is completely opaque. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the config param ambiguous.

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 'Permanently delete a Knowledge Base and ALL its documents,' which specifies the exact resource and scope of the action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kb_delete_document, which deletes individual documents, and kb_manage/kb_update, which modify or manage KBs.

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 guidance by warning 'DESTRUCTIVE — confirm with the user before calling,' indicating when this tool is appropriate (only after user confirmation). The phrase 'ALL its documents' implies that this is for whole-KB deletion, not for deleting individual documents, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool kb_delete_document.

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