rca_guide_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: the action is irreversible, confirm=true is required, ownership must match exactly, and deleting a guide referenced by an active decision-tree session does not disturb in-progress state. It also discloses the return contract and not_found error cases, making the destructive behavior fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the most important facts—permanent deletion, confirm requirement, irreversibility—before moving to edge cases and arguments. Every sentence earns its place, and the structured Args/Returns section makes the lengthy content easy to scan.

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, the description fully covers purpose, preconditions, scope restrictions, irreversibility, edge cases, and error behavior. The only omitted items, token and client_id, are documented in the schema, and the output schema exists, so nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is left unresolved.

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?

Although the top-level params wrapper has no schema description, the nested GuideDeleteInput properties are documented and the description adds further meaning: guide_id should come from rca_guide_list or rca_guide_search, and confirm must be true or an 'aborted' error is returned. The description does not discuss token or client_id, but those are straightforward and already described in the nested schema.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete an equipment guide you ingested,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation. It also distinguishes the tool's scope by noting the 4 built-in shared sample guides cannot be deleted, which separates it from broader deletion tools among the siblings.

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 description explicitly says deletion is scoped to your own guides and that the built-in samples can never be deleted this way, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also names re-ingest alternatives (rca_guide_ingest or rca_guide_ingest_pdf) if the guide is needed back, providing concrete recovery routing.

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