whodb_platform_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the default mode returns a confirmation token and requires explicit user approval, permission checks are enforced server-side, and workspace targeting is per-call without changing defaults. This is exactly the destructive-operation context an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource list, then the destructive warning, then the confirmation protocol. Dense but mostly earned; the resource enumeration is long yet operationally necessary since the enum is not expressed in the schema.

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 destructive 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirm workflow, resource-specific payload routing, permissions, and targeting. It omits whether deletion is soft/recoverable (relevant given the whodb_platform_restore and whodb_platform_deleted_resources siblings) and what the confirmation token looks like.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema does not encode: when to use id versus payload_json, and the specific sourceId/ref/values shape required for source_object. The workspace targeting behavior is also clarified relative to session defaults.

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+resource ('Delete a hosted platform resource') and enumerates the supported resource types, which is far more than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like whodb_platform_source_delete, whodb_platform_delete_ontology_fast_lookup, or whodb_platform_project_delete, so an agent must infer which delete entry point applies.

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?

Gives clear operative guidance: pass id for normal resources, use payload_json with sourceId/ref/values for source_object, and follow the default preview-then-confirm flow before calling whodb_platform_confirm. It stops short of naming the alternative delete tools or stating exclusions, so it lacks the explicit when-not routing of a 5.

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