harness_delete

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags: the operation 'cannot be undone,' and it discloses the URL auto-extraction behavior. This meaningfully complements the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then the convenience feature, then the critical warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to orient: what the tool does, how to simplify input via URL, and that the operation is permanent. The confirm parameter nuance is left to the schema, which is acceptable since the schema documents it thoroughly.

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%, so the parameter schema already documents all fields thoroughly. The description's mention of passing a URL to auto-extract identifiers largely restates what the url parameter description already says. Thus the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a Harness resource.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like harness_create, harness_update, and harness_search. It also adds a useful capability (URL-based identifier extraction), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose—deleting a Harness resource—is stated explicitly enough that an agent knows when to select it. The warning 'This is destructive and cannot be undone' provides clear contextual guidance to exercise care. It does not reference alternatives, but no exclusions or alternative routing are needed for a delete operation.

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