softDeleteRepo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the underlying behavior in detail: publishes replaceable event 30617 with deleted markers and a NIP-09 kind 5 on the 'a' tag. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements beyond 'owner'.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes precise technical detail. Every phrase adds value, from the NIP spec to the alias, without wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides substantial protocol-level context, including the exact Nostr event types and tag format. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., key loading) and parameter usage, but the core operation is well-specified.

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 only 40% (repoId and privkey have descriptions). The description does not explain any parameters; it references 'owner' and 'repo' generically but doesn't connect them to schema fields. Thus it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 it performs an owner soft-delete for a NIP-34 repo, with specific protocol actions ('publish replaceable 30617 with deleted markers + NIP-09 kind 5'). It provides a concrete alias 'deleteRepo', but this alias overlaps with a sibling tool, so it doesn't clearly distinguish from that sibling.

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 it is for owner-driven soft deletion ('Owner soft-delete') and gives a user-facing comparison ('same as gittr Settings → Delete'). However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this over alternatives like the sibling 'deleteRepo', and the alias statement could cause confusion.

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