delete_location

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

Even though annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: 'PERMANENTLY', 'There is no undo', that sub-locations are deleted recursively, and that child items are ORPHANED to the top level rather than deleted. This goes well beyond the annotation and fully discloses side effects.

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 three tight sentences: the first states the action, the second explains the confirm requirement, and the third covers non-empty behavior and irreversibility. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all important contextual aspects: preconditions (confirm must match), failure modes (non-empty refusal), side effects (sub-locations deleted, items orphaned), and irreversibility (no undo). This is sufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains location as a name or path, confirm as the location's exact name, and confirm_nonempty as the flag that permits deleting non-empty locations and orphans items. This fully compensates for the missing parameter descriptions in the 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 a location', giving a specific verb, resource, and permanence qualifier. It also notes the location can be a name or /-separated path, and the sibling list (delete_item, delete_tag, delete_attachment, etc.) makes the resource distinction 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?

Clear usage context is provided: it explains when deletion is refused (non-empty location without confirm_nonempty=True) and what confirm must satisfy. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_item, but the resource-specific scope and conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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