nexterm_delete_source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description earns credit for disclosing the cascade (synchronized content is destroyed along with the source), which is not in the annotations, but omits whether sync jobs are halted, whether deletion fails when the source is in use, and whether the operation is reversible in any way.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the destructive verb and the permanence qualifier, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a destructive one-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it says what dies and that it is permanent. It is still missing the practical guidance an agent needs — how to obtain the source_id and what error behavior to expect.

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% and the single parameter source_id is documented only as an integer with minimum 1. The description says nothing about where a valid source_id comes from (e.g., nexterm_list_sources) or what happens with an invalid/unknown id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Permanently delete a source") with a scope note that synchronized content is also removed, which cleanly separates it from nexterm_delete_entry, nexterm_delete_integration, and nexterm_delete_script. It does not name a sibling explicitly, 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?

No statement of when to use this versus nexterm_update_source or the integration-delete tools, and no prerequisites such as stopping sync or having admin rights. The only usage signal is the word "Permanently," which implies caution but gives no actionable condition.

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