whodb_platform_delete_ontology_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. On top of that the description discloses the two-step preview/confirm workflow and that workspace targeting is per-call and does not change defaults – behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations 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?

Four short sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by the parameter hint and the workflow warning in priority order. No padding, though it could be marginally tighter by merging the values hint into the same sentence as the delete action.

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 single-row delete with full annotation coverage and a complete schema, the description supplies the key missing piece – the preview-then-confirm safety flow. No output schema exists, but the confirmation-token return behavior is stated, so an agent has enough to act correctly.

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 schema already documents values, entity_id, and workspace. The description adds only a light hint that values identify the row and are usually the primary key property, which is marginally beyond the schema and sets the baseline of 3.

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 ("Delete one hosted ontology row") that an agent can distinguish from the add/update siblings. However, it does not name the closer alternatives like whodb_platform_delete_ontology_fast_lookup or whodb_platform_delete, so the differentiation from siblings relies on their names rather than explicit routing.

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 concrete operational guidance: pass row-identifying values (usually the primary key), the default mode returns a confirmation token, and the agent should not call whodb_platform_confirm until the user approves the preview. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the fast_lookup or generic delete siblings, so no explicit exclusion.

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