delete_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'permanently', which implies irreversibility, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, side effects (e.g., if deletion affects related data), error conditions, or confirmation steps, making it insufficient for a destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—'Delete a context permanently by its ID'—front-loading the key action and resource efficiently. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, consequences), usage context, and return values, which are essential for safe and effective invocation in a system with multiple context-related tools.

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 100%, with the parameter 'context_id' fully documented in the schema as a UUID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying deletion targets a specific context by ID, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a context permanently by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other deletion-related operations that might exist among siblings, such as 'consolidate_contexts' which could involve removal, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'consolidate_contexts', 'update_context', and 'list_contexts', there's no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios favoring deletion over other operations, leaving usage unclear.

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