delete_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the operation as delete but fails to mention whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to associated data, or if any prerequisites/permissions are needed. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 and efficient, with a clear one-line purpose followed by two succinct use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition, earning a strong score.

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?

Given the destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description should address irreversibility, side effects, or error conditions. It only states the action and use cases, leaving out crucial safety information needed for an agent to invoke this tool responsibly.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 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 'Delete a version from a Yunxiao Project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like update_version and create_version. The use cases further reinforce what the tool does.

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 use cases 'Remove obsolete versions' and 'Clean up project versions' provide clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_version for non-destructive changes, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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