harness_delete

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds 'this is destructive and cannot be undone' which reinforces destructiveHint but does not detail side effects or error handling. The URL extraction behavior is noted, but overall transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides critical information (operation, unique feature, warning). Highly efficient.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects), the description covers the core action and key feature but does not summarize how parameters like params, resource_scope, or confirm interact. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description could provide a high-level usage flow for completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds contextual value by explaining the URL parameter's ability to auto-extract identifiers and the destructive nature that impacts the confirm parameter. This extra context justifies above baseline 3.

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 'Delete a Harness resource', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like harness_create or harness_update by specifying destruction. The unique feature of URL auto-extraction further clarifies its purpose.

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 does not explicitly compare with alternatives like harness_update for modifications. The destructive warning ('cannot be undone') implies caution but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The openWorldHint annotation provides some context, but the description itself could be more directive.

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