pylon_delete_article

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

The description does not contradict any annotations (none were provided). It adds 'Permanently' which discloses irreversibility, but it lacks details about prerequisites, permissions, or potential cascade effects. With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, and while it covers the most critical aspect (permanence), it omits other useful context.

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 one short sentence that conveys the essential action and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 low complexity (two simple string parameters, no output schema) and the schema covering parameters fully, the description is largely complete. It asserts permanence, which is the most critical behavioral context for a delete operation. However, it does not note what happens to linked collections or whether the action is idempotent, which would be useful for a destructive tool, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (article_id and knowledge_base_id) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, as it merely mentions 'article' and 'knowledge base' without detailing format or relationships. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents each parameter.

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') with a clear resource ('article') and scope ('from a knowledge base'), making it unambiguous. It also adds 'Permanently', which distinguishes this from a soft delete or archive action. It stands apart from sibling tools like pylon_update_article or pylon_delete_project.

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 the tool is for permanently removing an article from a knowledge base, which is the key usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-non usage, but the intent is straightforward given the tool's name and sibling context. A brief note that updating is a different operation would have been explicit, but the clarity is sufficient.

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