delete_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds value beyond them: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), the side effect of dangling references on other records, an environment-variable gate, and a human-confirmation requirement. None of that is inferable from the annotations or schema, and nothing contradicts the idempotentHint/destructiveHint profile.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct loadable information: effect, irreversibility/risk, alternative, and gate/confirmation. The most important constraint (permanence) is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing risk, prerequisite, and alternative information an agent needs before calling. No relevant gap remains.

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 entity_type, bundle, and id are already documented, and the enum-like entity list lives in the schema. The description only alludes to entity types indirectly via the assets/plans alternative, which is marginal added meaning. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and effect ('Permanently delete a record') and immediately distinguishes itself from the destructive-adjacent sibling set_archived by naming it. An agent can tell this apart from update_record or set_archived without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ('For assets and plans, set_archived is almost always what is wanted') and states the prerequisite condition (FARMOS_ALLOW_DELETE=true) plus a required procedural step (confirm with the user first). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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