Delete a push mirror

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, idempotent, and not read-only, but the description adds crucial scope: only the mirror configuration is removed, syncing stops, and the remote repository and already-pushed content remain untouched. It also specifies the response shape {deleted: remote_name}, which the annotations do not cover.

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 compact and front-loaded, moving from operation to scope to return value to alternative behavior. Every sentence adds actionable information, and none is redundant padding.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: write-mode requirement, exact deletion scope, return shape, and the no-edit-tool workaround using add_push_mirror. Nothing essential is omitted.

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 schema already documents owner, repo, and remote_name. The description reinforces that remote_name must come from list_push_mirrors, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: removing one push mirror from a repository by remote_name. It distinguishes this from list_push_mirrors and add_push_mirror, so an agent can identify the correct operation without reading the schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite (write mode) and explains the alternative path when the goal is merely to stop automatic syncing: there is no edit tool, so delete and re-add via add_push_mirror. That gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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