kb_propose_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: AI cannot directly delete, a one-time proposal number is returned, and human confirmation at the command line is required. It still omits details such as proposal expiry, permissions, or what happens after confirmation.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and the critical human-confirmation constraint are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description should do more to explain the required node_token and reason parameters, even though the core proposal workflow is covered.

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% for both required parameters, and the description does not explain node_token or reason at all. The overall context hints that these relate to a deletion target and justification, but no parameter-level meaning is added beyond the schema titles.

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 and resource: initiating a deletion proposal. It also clarifies that AI cannot delete directly, which makes the tool's role distinct from direct mutation, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools.

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 implies this tool is used when a deletion is needed but cannot be performed directly, and that human confirmation is required. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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