deleteRepo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'soft-delete' (non-destructive) and 'owner only' (permission), but does not explain what soft-delete means in practice (e.g., recoverability), any side effects, or what happens to the repository. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool with zero annotation support.

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 that front-loads the alias relationship and the action. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is direct. However, it is extremely brief, which compromises completeness, but for pure conciseness it earns a high 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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or the practical implications of 'soft-delete'. The reliance on an alias to softDeleteRepo does not stand alone, as no details from that tool are provided here.

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 description provides no parameter details. There are 5 parameters (name, relays, repoId, privkey, description) but the description does not explain their roles or how to use them. The 'owner only' hint is too vague to compensate for the complete lack of parameter semantics.

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 the action ('soft-delete'), the resource (a NIP-34 repository), and the access restriction ('owner only'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling softDeleteRepo by explicitly noting it is an alias, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Alias for softDeleteRepo' implies the tool is used interchangeably with softDeleteRepo, which is a form of usage guidance. The 'owner only' note adds a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other deletion alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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