delete_resource

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: deletion is a move-to-trash (recoverable), cascade=true also removes child resources, and an id is returned for restoration — none of which the 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope of the operation (documents, cascade children) front-loaded and the recovery path second. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent that the call returns an id consumed by restore_resource, and the annotations plus fully-documented schema cover the remaining safety and parameter needs. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (including the mandatory confirm and the project defaulting rule) are already documented. The description restates the cascade effect but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a resource ... to the trash') and clarifies the semantics of the operation — it is a soft delete, not a permanent removal. It also names the inverse sibling (restore_resource), letting an agent distinguish this from delete_document or delete_map_feature 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?

The description routes the agent to restore_resource for undoing the action and implies reversibility, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer delete_resource over the many other delete_* siblings, nor any preconditions beyond what the schema's confirm field already carries.

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