rm_delete_placeholder_resource

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals a destructive operation, and readOnlyHint=false supports that. The description adds the specific requirement that confirm must be true, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose details such as what happens to associated data or whether deletion is reversible.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the critical safety note about confirm=True. There is no redundancy or 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 simple delete operation with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers the essential safety requirement. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when deletion is appropriate) and does not elaborate on the placeholder_id semantics. Still, the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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, but it only mentions confirm=True and never explains placeholder_id. The parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema's field names and types. The confirm requirement is the sole added semantic detail.

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') and a clear resource ('placeholder resource'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like rm_create_placeholder_resource and rm_list_placeholder_resources by naming the delete operation.

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: use this when you need to delete a placeholder resource. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is clear enough that an agent can infer when it applies. No guidance about when not to use it is provided.

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