whodb_platform_source_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 genuinely new behavior: deletion is deferred behind a returned confirmation token, requires user approval, and must not be confirmed prematurely. This two-phase safety contract is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the key two-phase safety fact, and each sentence carries actionable information. Minor redundancy between 'This is destructive' and the destructiveHint annotation, and the approval instruction is restated, but the structure is efficient overall.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the workflow, prerequisite verification, and required user-approval gate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (source, workspace) are already fully documented, including the per-call targeting semantics. The description echoes the workspace targeting ('without changing defaults') but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema, so 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+resource ('Prepare deletion of a hosted WhoDB source') and immediately clarifies it is a two-phase operation that deletes nothing until a confirmation token is approved. This distinguishes it from sibling whodb_platform_delete and from whodb_platform_source_update/create 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to whodb_platform_sources to verify the target and to whodb_platform_confirm for the approval step, and instructs not to confirm until the user approves. It gives clear context and a required workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast against the generic whodb_platform_delete sibling.

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