vk_delete_method

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it requires two confirmation flags, sends nothing without both, and returns a JSON envelope. It also warns that the endpoint 'deletes or irreversibly changes data,' which goes beyond the annotation. Minor gap: it doesn't describe error behavior beyond 'error envelope' or mention auth requirements, but the confirmation mechanism is well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact (destructive). The confirmation requirement is stated early, and the parameter list is terse but complete. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 generic destructive executor with an output schema, so the description covers the key operational needs: target API, required confirmations, parameter meanings, and return envelope. It could mention that operation_id must be discovered via vk_search_methods (it does) and could clarify error handling, but the output schema and annotations fill some gaps. Overall it is complete enough 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 each parameter in plain terms: operation_id comes from the catalog, path_values fill {placeholders}, query is query-string parameters, body is JSON, and the two booleans must be true. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. It doesn't give detailed formats for query/body, but for a generic passthrough tool that is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb ('Execute one DESTRUCTIVE endpoint: deletes or irreversibly changes data') and names the target API. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like vk_call_method and vk_write_method by emphasizing destructive operations. The title and annotations reinforce the destructive nature, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly states the required confirmation flags and says 'nothing is sent without both,' giving clear conditions for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the destructive framing and sibling names (vk_call_method, vk_write_method) imply the distinction. It could be stronger with an explicit 'use vk_call_method for non-destructive calls' note.

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