research_delete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substantial detail that this is a soft removal into a recycle area that preserves the original evidence and can be undone via undelete — valuable context that reframes 'destructive' as recoverable. Not a contradiction, but a meaningful qualification of the annotation.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and appends the reversibility guarantee; every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and reversibility, and the annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly; return-value details are unnecessary here.

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 burden of explaining the single parameter. 'Explicitly selected research' hints that study_id targets one specific item rather than a bulk/recursive delete, but the required ^r_[a-f0-9]{8}$ identifier format and where to obtain it are never mentioned, so the compensation is only partial.

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 concrete verb+resource pair — moving an explicitly selected research item into the recycle bin — which is far more informative than the bare name research_delete. It also differentiates from research_undelete by naming it as the inverse operation, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling research_archive, which is the main adjacent concept an agent must choose between.

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 tells the agent the operational context (explicit selection, reversible removal) and names the recovery alternative (undelete), which is enough to route correctly in most cases. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use clause, e.g. archive vs delete, so the choice against research_archive is left to inference.

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