commands_delete_global

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the description discloses the full destructive scope ('removes the command from every guild'), a propagation time ('~1 hour'), and the explicit authorization gate ('Pass __confirm:true AND MCP_DRY_RUN=false to actually delete'). This adds critical safety context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 tightly structured into three labeled lines: Purpose, Effect, Returns. Front-loaded with the core action, every sentence adds new information with zero filler. Extremely efficient for a destructive tool.

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?

Given an output schema (so returns are already specified) and comprehensive annotations, the description still covers the essential safety and execution context: what gets deleted, the propagation delay, and the confirmation/dry-run mechanism. It is complete enough for an agent to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the __confirm confirmation parameter and the MCP_DRY_RUN requirement. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond pointing to __confirm and mentioning the return object, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 'Delete a global application command' – a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('global application command'), clearly distinguishing it from guild-scoped siblings like commands_delete_guild. The effect statement 'removes the command from every guild within ~1 hour' further removes ambiguity.

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 implies usage for global commands ('global', 'every guild'), but does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as commands_delete_guild or state when not to use it. Usage is clear enough for an agent familiar with command scoping, but lacks direct exclusion guidance.

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