rm_delete_discipline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the core destructive nature is covered. The description adds the critical requirement that confirm must be true, which is not derivable from the schema alone and prevents an agent from invoking the tool incorrectly. It does not detail consequences like cascading deletes or irreversibility, but the confirm guard plus annotation is solid for this simple delete.

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 a single compact sentence with the essential action and the highest-priority constraint. No filler or redundant elaboration. It is front-loaded and immediately actionable, perfect for an AI agent scanning tool definitions.

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 straightforward delete operation with destructiveHint=true and an output schema present, the description covers the key invocation requirement (confirm=True). It lacks details about error conditions, idempotency, or cascading effects, but those are less critical for a simple delete and the annotation already signals danger. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter's essential behavior (must be true), which is valuable. However, it provides no explanation of discipline_id beyond the name, though the parameter is self-explanatory and the schema offers type flexibility. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource 'discipline', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rm_create_discipline and rm_update_discipline by the action alone. The confirm requirement adds an important qualifier without obscuring the core purpose.

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 when a discipline must be removed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as rm_update_discipline for modifications or rm_list_disciplines for finding the ID. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.

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