source_delete

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

The description discloses the cascading deletion of chunks/vectors, a critical behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or error states, leaving a significant transparency gap for a destructive action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action and its main side effect.

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 delete tool, the description covers the core behavior and one side effect. However, it omits critical operational context such as whether deletion is irreversible, required permissions, or how it relates to notebook_id, making it only minimally complete.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (source_id, notebook_id). The schema itself only provides names and types, so the tool provides no additional meaning to guide parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('a source') along with a key side effect ('its chunks/vectors'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like source_add or source_list.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description: when you want to remove a source. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other source tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite information.

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