deleteSoftwareAnnounce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the NIP-09 kind 5 mechanism and the non-deletion of the git repo, but omits behavioral details like auth requirements (privkey/ownerPubkey), whether deletion events are broadcast to relays, irreversibility, and ownership verification. Partial but not complete transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value: protocol, action, resource type, and an important exclusion.

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 deletion tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively thin. It does not explain return values, error conditions, relay usage, or whether ownership is required. It provides the core function but lacks operational context an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50% (only eventIds and privkey have descriptions). The description adds useful context that eventIds refer to NIP-82 app/release/asset events, but relays, privkey, and ownerPubkey are not elaborated on beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the gaps.

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 tool performs NIP-09 kind 5 deletion for previously published NIP-82 event IDs, specifying the resource types (app/release/asset) and explicitly noting it does not delete the git repo. This distinguishes it from sibling publish/announcement tools and repo deletion operations.

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 the use case for removing previously published NIP-82 announcements and explicitly excludes git repo deletion, which provides a clear boundary. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions where this tool should not be used.

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