delete_question

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the important detail that options are deleted alongside the question, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention irreversibility, impact on existing submissions, or any prerequisites. The return confirmation is mentioned but not the exact format.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: it states the purpose in one line, lists arguments with brief types, and notes the return value. Every sentence earns its place without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary 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?

The description covers the core action, parameters, and return value, and an output schema exists to define the confirmation shape. It does not address edge cases like what happens if the question does not exist, or whether the operation is reversible, but for a simple delete tool with clear annotations this is acceptable. It could benefit from a note about cascade effects, but it already states that options are deleted.

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 0% because the description merely repeats the parameter names and adds 'numeric', which duplicates the integer type already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided about what the ids refer to, constraints, or relationships. For a two-parameter tool, the description should offer at least some context, but it adds almost nothing beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a question and its options from a form') with a specific resource (question) and scope (including options). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_option (which deletes only an option) and delete_form (which deletes the form itself). The verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 the tool should be used when you want to delete a question along with its associated options, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether the question must exist or be part of a draft form. No direct comparison to sibling delete tools is given, only an implicit cascade.

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