pad_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive and permanent nature ('Permanently delete', 'Irreversible') and adds a concurrency detail (expected_revision guards against deleting a just-updated pad). It does not describe effects on related resources (e.g., todos or comments referencing the pad), but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 two tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose ('Permanently delete a pad') is front-loaded, followed by the irreversibility warning, the sibling alternative, and the optional-parameter purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive tool with one required self-evident parameter (pad_id) and one schema-documented parameter (project_id), the description covers the essential risk information: irreversibility, the preferred alternative, and the concurrency guard. A note on what exactly gets destroyed (associated content, permissions) would push it higher, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 33%, so the description must compensate for the gap on expected_revision, which it does by explaining the version-guard purpose. pad_id is self-evident and project_id already has its own schema description. The description adds value to one undocumented parameter but does not fully offset the missing semantics for the others.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a pad') that precisely states the action and object. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pad_archive and pad_edit by emphasizing permanence, so an agent can tell what this tool does and what it is not.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance by stating 'prefer pad_archive', naming the concrete alternative for non-destructive removal. It does not spell out the positive trigger conditions beyond 'permanently delete', but the destination criteria (irreversible deletion vs. archive) are clear enough to route correctly.

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