delete_subtopic

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

The description explicitly discloses that deletion is soft and history is preserved, adding meaningful context beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=false. It is consistent with idempotentHint=true, though it does not explain repeated-call behavior or downstream effects on related data.

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 filler. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, and the key behavioral qualifier.

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 soft-delete operation, the description is mostly adequate, especially with annotations covering safety and idempotency. But it leaves unresolved the schema's broader id description and the practical effects of soft deletion, such as visibility in list_subtopics or whether history remains queryable via get_subtopic_history.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, the schema's id description ambiguously mentions study, topic, or subtopic, and the description does not resolve this inconsistency or clarify whether only subtopic ids are valid.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Soft-delete a subtopic,' and adds a meaningful qualifier, 'while preserving history,' which distinguishes it from hard-delete operations. However, the schema's id description says 'study, topic, or subtopic,' which muddies exactly what resource the tool deletes.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus delete_topic, delete_study, or delete_my_data. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or consequences such as whether soft-deleted subtopics disappear from listings or can be restored, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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