delete_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say deletion is irreversible, whether dependent records are affected, or whether a missing ID is an error.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 delete whose safety semantics are fully carried by annotations and whose parameter is fully documented by the schema, the description is essentially sufficient. A minor gap is the absence of any note about irreversibility or outcome, though destructiveHint partly compensates.

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 100%, so the single 'id' parameter (UUID format) is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the ID identifies the entry, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (knowledge base entry) plus the lookup key (by ID), which clearly separates it from add_knowledge and update_knowledge. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a scope boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites (e.g. permission requirements) are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete', matching the calibration level for 'no when-to-use, no prerequisites'.

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