Delete Knowledge Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the 'permanently' qualifier, which conveys irreversibility beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose the blast radius — such as whether documents contained in the library or dependent data are also destroyed.

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 six-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler: 'Permanently deletes a knowledge library.' Every word earns its place, and nothing from the title or schema is redundantly repeated.

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?

Complexity is low (one required parameter, no enums, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a destructive operation, the scope of deletion is underspecified — an agent cannot tell from the description what happens to the library's contents or to related entities used by sibling tools, which is the most important missing context.

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%, with library_name documented as 'Name of the library to delete.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('permanently deletes') on a specific resource ('a knowledge library'), and it is unambiguous against the sibling list, where no other tool performs deletion. However, it mostly restates the tool's name and title; the only added semantic value is the 'permanently' qualifier, so it stops 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 guidance about when to invoke this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., that the library must exist), and no caution about confirming the target before a destructive call. Usage is only implied by the verb 'deletes'; no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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