commands_delete_guild

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE' and detailing the confirmation mechanism ('Pass __confirm:true AND MCP_DRY_RUN=false'). It also discloses the return format, providing behavioral clarity beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations convey.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence earns its place. It covers purpose, destructiveness, return value, and confirmation in under three short sentences with no redundancy.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the destructive nature, confirmation flag, and return object. However, it omits any mention of required permissions or error cases, which is a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no significant new parameter semantics; it repeats the __confirm behavior already present in the schema. The mention of MCP_DRY_RUN is similarly in the schema, so baseline 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 'Delete a guild-scoped command' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like commands_delete_global. The 'guild-scoped' qualifier removes ambiguity and sets it apart from global command deletion.

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 when to use the tool (for guild-scoped commands) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide a 'when-not-to-use' scenario. The destructive warning and confirmation requirement are more about how to invoke than when to choose this tool.

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