delete_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('This action cannot be undone') and the cascading effect on associated jobs. It doesn't cover potential error conditions, permissions needed, or rate limits, but provides crucial safety warnings.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and scope, the second provides critical safety warning. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (irreversible deletion) is appropriately emphasized.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by warning about irreversible consequences and cascading effects. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases (e.g., invalid feedId) or confirming deletion success, but covers the essential behavioral risks adequately.

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 the single parameter 'feedId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a feed and all associated jobs'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_jobs (which only deletes jobs) and list_feeds/get_feed (which are read-only). It precisely communicates the tool's destructive scope.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to delete a feed and its jobs) and implicitly when not to use it (if you want to delete only jobs, use delete_jobs). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or mention prerequisites like feed existence checks, keeping it from a perfect score.

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