delete_my_data

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds meaningful context by specifying hard-delete semantics (permanent removal) and requiring explicit confirmation. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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?

One efficient sentence conveys scope, permanence, and the confirmation requirement without wasted wording. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 destructive action with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what happens, to whom, with what permanence, and under what condition, leaving no critical gap for invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single confirmation parameter already documents the exact required string. The description only echoes the need for explicit confirmation, adding no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('hard-delete'), a clear resource ('all study data for the authenticated user'), and a distinct scope that separates it from per-resource siblings like delete_study, delete_topic, and delete_subtopic. The phrase 'all study data' removes ambiguity about what gets removed.

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 makes clear this is the tool for deleting the entire authenticated user's study data, and the 'after explicit confirmation' qualifier sets the expected precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope and sibling list make the intended usage inferable.

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