softDeleteRepo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure; it spells out that the tool publishes a replaceable NIP-34 30617 event with deleted markers, issues a NIP-09 kind 5, and POSTs the signed event to the bridge. It also marks the operation as soft-delete and owner-scoped, giving important side-effect and authorization context, though it stops short of describing error conditions or reversibility.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the protocol steps, endpoint, UI analogy, and alias each add useful context. It communicates a complex multi-step operation in a compact structure.

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?

The protocol-level behavior is well covered for an operation with no output schema and no annotations, but the description is silent on return behavior, error cases, and the role of optional parameters like relays. For a multi-step signing/publishing operation, this leaves meaningful gaps, even though the core delete action is clear.

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 only 40%, and the description does not mention any parameters or explain how name, relays, description, or privkey factor into the deletion. The repoId and privkey schema entries carry the only parameter meaning; the description does not compensate for the undocumented optional fields.

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 opens with a specific operation—'Owner soft-delete for a NIP-34 repo'—and adds concrete protocol details (30617 event, NIP-09 kind 5, bridge endpoint) that go beyond the tool name. It does not actively distinguish this from the sibling deleteRepo; instead it labels deleteRepo as an alias, which slightly muddies tool selection even though the intended action is clear.

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 'Owner soft-delete' states the intended actor and operation, and 'same as gittr Settings → Delete' anchors it to a known workflow. It lacks explicit comparisons or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for a repo owner deletion task.

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