debate_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context by stating 'Permanently' and 'all its data', clarifying the scope of destruction. It also discloses the deprecation status, which is not in 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 two sentences, with the deprecation notice front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, providing clear action and alternative without waste.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description fully captures what the agent needs: the action, the permanence, the scope, and the alternative. No output schema requires no explanation of return values.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'debate_id' with no description coverage (0%). The description does not explain the parameter format, validity, or behavior when the ID does not exist, despite low schema coverage requiring compensation.

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 tool's function: 'Permanently delete a debate and all its data.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('debate'), and the deprecation notice distinguishes it from the preferred alternative (debate).

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?

Explicitly instructs not to use this tool and to prefer 'debate(prompt, mode=...)' instead, providing clear when-to-use and alternative guidance. This goes beyond a simple mention of the algorithm.

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