delete

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation, explaining that deletion is soft, files are moved to a timestamped trash path, the path is returned for manual restoration, parent folders are pruned when empty, and topics are never unlinked. This provides comprehensive behavioral transparency with no contradictions.

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 extremely concise, with the main action in the first sentence and supplementary details in two short follow-up sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and a clear annotation, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the destination, the return value, side effects, and restoration. It is self-contained and leaves no major gaps.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'topic_id' with 100% coverage and an example. The description adds minor context by showing how the topic_id is used in the trash path template, but this is not essential since the schema already defines the parameter clearly.

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 identifies the tool as a soft-delete operation for a topic, specifying the destination as a trash path and contrasting with potential permanent deletion. The phrase 'never unlinked' and the return of the trash path distinguish it from related sibling tools like 'sweep' and 'rename'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: for reversible deletion that can be manually restored. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'sweep' (likely permanent deletion), so it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context of soft-delete and manual restore is strong.

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