Supprimer un(e) ressource

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly warns 'Action irréversible' and explains that a confirmation will be requested if the MCP client supports elicitation. This complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The warning and elicitation note are useful, but the Args section is redundant with the schema, adding minor unnecessary length.

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 simplicity (one parameter, destructive operation), the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and confirmation behavior. The output schema exists and can explain return values. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites are not critical for such a straightforward delete operation.

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?

The schema already provides a description for the 'id' parameter ('Identifiant unique de l'entité BoondManager (numérique)'). The description's Args section repeats this information without adding new details, so it adds no value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Supprime un(e) ressource de BoondManager' (deletes a resource from BoondManager). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_resources_create or boond_resources_update.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where deletion might not be appropriate or point to sibling tools. The intended use is implied by the name and description but not stated.

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