Delete deck

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the operation is permanent, irreversible ('cannot be undone'), and cascades to the change plan and viewer chat. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior.

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 carrying the action, the cascade, the usage gate, and the irreversibility warning. No filler, nothing buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description plus the destructiveHint annotation give an agent everything needed to call it safely. The only omission is any meaning for deck_id, which is trivial given the parameter name.

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% and the single required parameter deck_id is never described in the text. However, with only one obviously-named identifier parameter there is little room for ambiguity, so this is adequate rather than deficient.

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?

States a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('deck'), and goes further by enumerating the cascade (change plan, viewer chat). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_slides or update_deck, which do not destroy the deck entity.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Only do this when the user asks', which is strong usage guidance for an irreversible action. It does not name any alternative tool or describe a non-destructive path, so it stops short of a 5.

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