delete_content

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action 'Delete' but does not indicate whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has cascading effects. The agent is left without warnings about consequences, which is critical for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentence that delivers the core action and target. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or ambiguity. This is an example of appropriate under-specification rather than a lack of content.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what input it needs. However, given a destructive operation without annotations, mentioning irreversibility or return behavior could improve completeness. Still, the low complexity and full schema coverage make this largely sufficient.

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% for the single parameter 'id' (Content ID (UUID)), so the schema already documents it completely. The description adds no extra meaning beyond identifying that the parameter is used to select which content item to delete. Baseline of 3 applies because schema handles the semantics.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'content item', making the action explicit. It distinguishes itself well from sibling tools like get_content, save_content, and search_content, which perform different operations on content.

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, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when a delete might be inappropriate or if there are safer alternatives (e.g., 'mark_article' for non-permanent removal). This is a minimal 'just do it' description with no contextual usage advice.

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