delete_topic

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

Annotations already convey non-destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context by explicitly saying 'soft-delete' and 'preserving history.' This explains why destructiveHint is false and clarifies that history is retained, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 adds value, and the key behavioral qualifier 'while preserving history' is included without bloating the text.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable ambiguity is that the id accepts study, topic, or subtopic while the description says 'topic,' but the schema resolves this at call time.

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 input schema fully documents the id parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation—'Soft-delete a topic while preserving history'—with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete_study/delete_subtopic, and the id schema's 'study, topic, or subtopic' scope introduces minor ambiguity, so it stops short of a 5.

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 instead of delete_study or delete_subtopic, nor when not to use it. The resource name implies scope, but the broader id description makes the lack of explicit routing a meaningful gap.

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