delete_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden. It usefully discloses that the handle is validated before deletion, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, it does not say whether deletion is permanent/recoverable, what happens on validation failure, or whether the operation is idempotent despite the presence of an idempotency_key parameter.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The operation, resource scope, and validation requirement are all front-loaded, and every word adds 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?

The description is minimally viable for a single-delete tool, especially since an output schema exists to document return values. Still, the optional parameters remain unexplained, and the lack of behavioral detail around idempotency and failure modes leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that handle is an 'opaque handle' that gets validated, but it says nothing about command_id or idempotency_key, leaving those optional parameters semantically unexplained.

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 uses a clear verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('one managed artifact'), and adds a distinctive behavior ('after validating its opaque handle'). This separates it from sibling tools like cleanup_artifacts (bulk deletion) and read_artifact/get_artifact_info (read operations).

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 phrase 'one managed artifact' implies this is for single-artifact deletion rather than bulk cleanup, but no alternatives are named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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