delete_lifecycle

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

destructiveHint already signals the operation is destructive. The description adds value by disclosing a specific failure condition (dependencies block deletion), the prerequisite (reassign first), and a diagnostic path (get_lifecycle/used_by). It could go further by noting whether deletion is reversible, but the key operational behavior is covered.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the primary action, the critical failure mode, the remedy, and the intended use case. It is compact and front-loaded, with no redundant or tangential information.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when it fails, what to do before calling it, and why one might call it at all. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already documents 'name' with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, but no compensation is needed because the single required parameter is fully explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a lifecycle.' This clearly distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like create_lifecycle, update_lifecycle, and get_lifecycle, and the rest of the description reinforces the delete semantics.

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 practical context: it fails when a queue or catalog still uses the lifecycle, and it directs the agent to reassign those references first, pointing to get_lifecycle for discovering them via used_by. It does not explicitly contrast with update_lifecycle as the reassignment tool, so it stops just short of full alternative guidance.

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