abx_delete_action_version

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about permanence, whether released versions can be removed, or any authorization requirement, only the REST path.

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?

Three lines where one would do: line 1 and line 2 are the same sentence with different capitalization, which is pure redundancy rather than front-loading. The only unique content is the raw endpoint.

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 three-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the definition is minimally sufficient — an agent can identify and invoke it. It still omits the consequences of the delete and the projectId scoping rule.

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 id, versionId, and projectId all documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The path template in the description loosely corroborates that id and versionId are path segments but adds no meaning beyond the schema, and projectId's unusual role for non-system actions is left to the schema alone.

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 verb+resource ("Delete an action version") is unambiguous, but the second line merely restates the first verbatim and the third is the raw HTTP route. It never distinguishes this from nearby siblings such as abx_delete_action, abx_restore_action_version, or abx_release_action_version.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between deleting a version versus deleting the whole action (abx_delete_action) or restoring it (abx_restore_action_version).

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