delete_timeline

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a closed-world mutation. The description adds the valuable guardrail that referenced timelines are refused, but says nothing about irreversibility or undo, whether child tracks/layers are removed with the timeline, or how an expectedRevision mismatch behaves.

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the blocking condition second; every word earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is thin: it leaves the idempotency/request semantics, the revision-conflict path, and the blast radius of deletion (what else is destroyed) unexplained. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing at expectedRevision and requestId.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not: timelineId is only implied, while requestId, sessionId, and especially expectedRevision (an optimistic-concurrency control) are never explained. Only one of four parameters gets any implied meaning.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Delete one timeline") and scopes it to a single entity, which separates it from the bulk/sibling mutation tools such as update_timeline and clone_timeline. It never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts with delete_layer, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 sentence "Refuses timelines referenced by state machines" gives a real precondition an agent must check before calling, which is more than nothing. However, it does not say what to do instead (e.g., remove the state machine references first, or use another tool), nor does it describe when this is preferable to update_timeline or leaving the timeline in place.

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