bw_delete_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the active version is destroyed by default, that version M only discards a pending revised version, and that dependent queries lose access. It stops short of stating permission/authorization requirements or whether the change needs activation/transport.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then version semantics, then downstream impact. Each sentence is informative, though sentence two partially overlaps the schema's version description.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral question (what is destroyed under which version) and the consequence for dependent queries. Authorization and activation/transport requirements are the remaining omission.

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 100% and the version enum is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of the A/M semantics adds only marginal clarification beyond what the schema's enum description already provides.

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 (a hierarchy of a characteristic), and the first sentence alone lets an agent distinguish this from the sibling create/update/get hierarchy tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the note about queries no longer finding the hierarchy, but the description never explicitly names when to use this versus bw_update_hierarchy or the generic bw_delete. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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