delete_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the crucial behavioral trait that the default is recoverable while permanent erases. It omits confirmation requirements, permission implications, and whether dependents are affected, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the critical distinction between recoverable and permanent deletion stated immediately. No wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more: explain confirm, mention whether permanent deletion is irreversible without confirmation, and differentiate from archive_feature. The core mode distinction is present but important operational context 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 67%, so the schema does most of the work. The description usefully clarifies that permanent=false means retire and permanent=true means permanent erase, but it says nothing about the confirm parameter's role or expected value.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('feature') and clarifies two modes, retire or permanent erase. It nonetheless fails to distinguish the tool from the nearby sibling archive_feature, which appears to offer a similar recoverable-hide operation.

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 explains the default recoverable mode versus permanent erase, which is useful internal guidance. However, it never says when an agent should pick this tool over archive_feature, delete_design, or rollback_feature, and gives no prerequisites.

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