kaiten_delete_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the delete action without explaining whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it cascades to boards/cards/documents, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation, this is a siginificant gap.

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 sentence with no fluff and the action verb is front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it is slightly too sparse to qualify as a fully exemplary description.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent needs at least some context about the consequences of the operation, such as irreversibility or cascade deltions. The current description only restates what the tool does, leaving an agent unprepared for the destructive and possibly far-reaching effects of deleting a space.

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 one parameter, space_id, with a clear description 'Space ID' and 100% schema coverarge. According to the baseline, the schema already documents the parameteer adequately, and the tool description adds no additional parameter-specific context, which is acceptable here.

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 the action ('Delete') and the specific resource ('a Kaiten space'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kaiten_delete_project and kaiten_delete_board by naming the resource type, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb and resource, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions such as 'do not use if you only want to archive the space.' It relies entirely on the agent inferring that deleting a space is the right action.

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