corpus_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the specific behavior that all chunks/vectors are deleted permanently, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions; the added details are useful for understanding the full impact.

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?

A single sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it immediately understandable.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description fully covers the action and its consequences. The annotations and schema provide additional safety and parameter details, so no further context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for corpus_id with a clear description. The tool description does not add further semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter meaning adequately.

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 states a specific action ('Delete a corpus') and the scope ('all its chunks/vectors permanently'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like corpus_create, corpus_add, corpus_search, and corpus_list, which all have distinct purposes.

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 implies usage for permanent deletion but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or cautions, but the destructive nature is clear. The tool is straightforward enough that the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable.

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