delete_study

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the deletion is a soft-delete and that history is preserved, which clarifies the tool's effect beyond the raw annotation flags. This is useful context for an agent deciding whether calling this tool is safe and what consequences to expect.

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 wasted words. However, it sacrifices important scope information (topics/subtopics) for brevity, so it is concise but not optimally complete.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is underspecified. It omits that the id may reference a topic or subtopic, does not differentiate from sibling delete_topic and delete_subtopic, and does not clarify whether soft-deletion means the item disappears from listings or how history is surfaced. The schema covers the parameter, but the tool-level description leaves important selection and behavioral questions unanswered.

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 parameter description is already informative: 'Id of the study, topic, or subtopic to soft-delete for the authenticated user.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a clear action and resource: 'Soft-delete a study while preserving history.' However, it understates the actual scope: the input schema says the id can be a study, topic, or subtopic, and sibling tools delete_topic and delete_subtopic exist, so the description does not distinguish which tool applies to which resource type. This creates ambiguity about whether delete_study is only for studies or also for topics/subtopics.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus delete_topic, delete_subtopic, or delete_my_data. It does not explain whether topics/subtopics should be deleted through this tool or through their dedicated siblings. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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