delete_config_revision

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds the explicit warning 'This is irreversible,' providing important context about the permanent nature of the deletion. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond the structured safety flags.

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 sentence with a clear warning, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and risk.

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 destructive delete operation, the description is adequate, especially with the warning and the schema covering the confirm and dry_run safety gates. It could mention the prerequisite of listing revisions first, but the schema's reference to get_config_history covers that. Output schema exists, so return value details are unnecessary.

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 clear descriptions for revision_id, confirm, and dry_run. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (configuration history revision), and the identifier (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_config_revision and restore_config_backup by specifying deletion.

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, such as get_config_history for listing or restore_config_backup for restoring. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the user to infer usage.

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