wb_delete_raw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the mandatory confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data flags, plus the scope of deletion (any path). It also notes the target API and return format. No contradiction with 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 well-organized with a clear capability statement up front, followed by the args list. Every sentence adds necessary information, though the target API link could be seen as extra but is helpful context.

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?

The tool is a raw DELETE with 7 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core behavior, required flags, parameter details, and return format. It lacks edge-case handling details but is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: path format, method fixed to DELETE, host override, query, body, and the two required boolean flags. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 deletes data at ANY path, including non-catalog paths, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from catalog-based deletion tools (e.g., wb_delete_method) by explicitly mentioning 'any path' and 'not in the catalog'.

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 implies usage for arbitrary or non-catalog paths, and explicitly requires both confirmation flags, making the invocation conditions clear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for catalog paths, but the 'including paths not in the catalog' phrasing provides sufficient context to infer when to use this raw variant.

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