Delete Testimonial

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, so the description adds little beyond what is already known. The word 'permanently' is essentially redundant with the destructive annotation, and the alternative suggestion is more about usage than behavioral traits. No contradiction, but no meaningful new 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a pragmatic alternative. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function, the parameter type, and the relevant alternative. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage and already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Testimonial id or slug'. The description repeats this, adding no new detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 the tool's verb (delete), resource (testimonial), and method (by id or slug). It also distinguishes itself from update_testimonial by emphasizing permanence, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly advises using update_testimonial with published: false when only hiding is needed, providing clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative. This is a strong usage guideline that prevents misuse.

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