Delete a category

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: posts are preserved and merely become uncategorized, subcategories retain their paths, and human confirmation is required. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before calling a destructive tool and are not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the most consequential fact (posts are not deleted) is front-loaded. The confirmation warning is placed last, matching the order in which an agent should act.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key blast-radius question (what is and isn't destroyed) and the approval requirement. It omits whether the deletion is permanent/recoverable, required permissions, and the response shape, which are minor gaps but would be useful for a destructive call.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, while the required 'id' has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the undocumented required 'id' is only inferable from the tool name. Adequate given 'id' is largely self-evident, but no compensating detail is provided.

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's framing ('Posts filed under it... stop having a category', 'Its subcategories keep their path') makes it unambiguous that a category is being removed, which combined with the name/title pins down the verb+resource. It does not explicitly state 'deletes a category' in prose, but the consequences only make sense for that operation. It does not contrast with siblings like update_category, but the resource is clear.

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?

'Confirm with the person first' is an explicit prerequisite for invoking this tool, which is genuine usage guidance for a destructive operation. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., update_category to rename instead of delete) or state when deletion is inappropriate, so it stops short of the top score.

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