delete_package

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces the destructive nature with 'DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE' and adds that it is an async operation. No contradictions found.

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 concise with two sentences and a third short note. It is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a warning and usage hint. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers destructive nature, dry run recommendation, and async operation. However, it lacks details on the async workflow (e.g., returning a task ID) and what happens to associated resources. With no output schema, the agent may need more context for result handling.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as elaborating on the dryRun parameter's purpose or the timeout/polling behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action 'Deletes' and the resource 'a package from a Cognigy.AI project'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_package, get_package, and list_packages by specifying the destructive nature and including a warning.

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 guidance on using dryRun=true for validation before actual deletion, which is a safe practice. It also notes the operation is async. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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