gitea_delete_repository

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the critical destructive trait ('permanently', 'cannot be undone'), but lacks other behavioral details like required permissions, cascading effects on forks/issues, or rate limit implications.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy—each conveys critical information. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary metadata that slightly reduces front-loading clarity.

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 operation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. While the safety warning is essential, it fails to document the three parameters or explain the full scope of what gets deleted (code, issues, wiki, etc.).

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 has 0% description coverage for all 3 parameters (site, owner, repo). The description mentions 'Gitea repository' which contextually maps to the 'repo' parameter, but provides no explicit semantics for 'site' (instance URL?), 'owner' (user/org?), or 'repo' (name vs. ID).

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?

Clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('Gitea repository') with scope ('permanently'). The irreversibility warning distinguishes this from non-destructive sibling operations like gitea_update_repository or gitea_create_repository, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides implied usage guidance through the 'cannot be undone' warning, suggesting when NOT to use it. However, lacks explicit 'when to use' conditions or specific alternative recommendations (e.g., archiving vs. deleting).

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