Delete a sci-bot question

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Permanently deletes' is a genuinely valuable disclosure of irreversibility, the most important trait of a destructive action. However, it does not reveal cascading effects (whether an existing answer or token-history record is also removed) or any state restrictions on which questions are deletable (queued, in-progress, or answered).

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 sentence with zero waste: 'Permanently' carries irreversibility, 'deletes' carries the action, 'one question' carries the object scope, and 'of the signed-in account' carries ownership scope. It is front-loaded with the core action and free of filler or repetition.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter delete operation: action, scope, and irreversibility are stated, and the schema fully documents where parameter values come from. Gaps remain on whether id and handle must reference the same question, and on what happens to an associated answer or token-history records after deletion — questions an agent could reasonably face given siblings like scibot_read_answer and scibot_token_history.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema itself does the heavy lifting: both id and handle specify that values come from scibot_my_questions or scibot_check_question. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed given the coverage.

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 ('deletes'), names the resource ('one question'), and adds meaningful qualifiers: 'Permanently' signals irreversibility and 'of the signed-in account' restricts scope. It implicitly differentiates from sibling scibot_cancel_question through the 'permanently' adverb, but never names that alternative or states the cancel-vs-delete distinction explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over scibot_cancel_question (the likely alternative for non-permanent removal) or scibot_delete_conversation (which targets a different resource). The account-scope phrase provides context but no selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the decision entirely from sibling names.

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