Delete a repository

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely new context: no undo, write mode required, admin-scoped write token, and that a confirm mismatch is refused *before anything is sent* — a pre-flight safety guarantee not present in the structured fields. The return shape is stated explicitly since no output schema exists.

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?

Four dense sentences, zero waste, and the irreversible nature plus confirmation requirement are front-loaded before the alternative and return value. Each sentence carries distinct operational value.

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?

A destructive, irreversible mutation with no output schema — exactly where descriptions must do the most work. Irreversibility, auth requirements, the safety guard, the failure mode, and the response shape are all covered, so an agent can call it correctly without guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the confirm guard's runtime behavior ('a mismatch is refused before anything is sent'), which the schema only states as a requirement. Still, owner/repo semantics gain little beyond their schema entries.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a repository') and enumerates the scope of destruction (issues, PRs, releases, wiki, settings), which immediately separates it from non-destructive siblings like edit_repo or delete_branch.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition selecting it: 'To retire a repo but keep it readable, archive it with edit_repo (archived=true) instead.' It also states a pre-call prerequisite (user confirms the exact repo) rather than leaving it to inference.

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